With UK Government recognition of the importance of public private partnerships (PPP) in 2026, it was timely to be in a room with over 100 stakeholders at the recent Operational PPP Summit and Awards to lead a session discussing the role of data management, interpretation and assurance in building transparency and trust in these future partnerships.
Funding of our £1.6 trillion infrastructure and capital projects gap[1] is now more likely than ever (at least in part), to come through some form of private investment in public estates. These new partnerships will need to bring with them the lessons learnt from past private financing initiatives, including the need for a better shared understanding of the contract, control of building quality and how it should operate; a much stronger and more defined role for the public sector partner. A large part of this is understanding the built asset data requirements and the perspectives of all stakeholders in the private public partnerships when it comes to collating, maintaining and monitoring that data.
We started the RLB workshop at the December OPPPS 2025 Summit with an audience reflection of where we are as an industry. The good news was that the majority of stakeholders in the room acknowledged that their counterparty in their contract was trustworthy and that most of them where familiar with the phrase “Project Base Data” when it came to the project’s built assets. However, although acknowledging this, many worryingly, were less aware of the exact built asset data requirements and why this data is important to their partners. Without this shared understanding, it will be challenging to move away from what is and what is not usable data by all parties; noting there will be commercially sensitive data which may not be possible to share. The differentiation between common data (fact-based data) and commercial and operational data required by each the public and private partners which has and can lead to the mistrust and suspicion conversations. Yet, there is likely to be a lot of commonality between the data required.
So, what was needed to create a culture of trust and transparency in relation to project base data? The results of our mini poll backed our assumptions; a common understanding was the key thing that people felt was missing presently, which compromised trust and transparency. Other words that were prominent were ‘Integrity’, ‘Understanding’, ‘Pragmatism’, ‘Honesty’, ‘Openness’, ‘Accuracy’ and ‘Collaboration’. These were sentiments that the audience felt were needed in future partnerships to ensure that that a robust culture of trust around common data was cultivated to support the project.
Data as an Asset Controller
With many of the previous versions of PPP being criticised for gathering data for data’s sake, the audience was challenged to think about what data might be needed by the different stakeholders – the Trust / Authority (in the case of Healthcare and Education), the SPV and the FM. The requirements were considered for each of the three different phases of a project’s lifecycle; the operational phase, preparations required ahead of project expiry and requirements for future services provision.
Outlining a five-step plan of action, we identified the need to develop a data strategy which should include the following key elements.
- Identify assets – consider how assets are being captured and ensure this is thorough and complete. Don’t rely solely on the FM contractor’s Asset Register or CAFM systems for an inventory, as they typically only reflect maintainable assets rather than a comprehensive Asset Inventory. Without a complete data set informed decisions are challenging and effective risk management is only possible when you understand the risks.
- Organisation and classification of assets – having a well-defined taxonomy hierarchy linked to a cost database is essential, generally based on NRM or BCIS standards. It is important that the SFG20 maintenance codes are recorded correctly against assets, and data should be enhanced with local knowledge, for example, site names for specific pieces of equipment.
- Maintenance: success in maintenance isn’t just based on the identification and repair of asset defects or failures; but on a lifecycle plan that anticipates future issues and prevents these across the asset lifecycle through understanding of data e.g. routine maintenance. An asset tagging system that’s consistently updated when items are replaced and ensures records remain current can support this.
- Interpretation and management tools: parties to the contract must be truly equipped to handle and interpret massive data sets – sometimes exceeding 100,000 lines. Robust tools are needed to manage this data to enable confident decision-making and scenario planning. These range from simple spreadsheet pivots, slicers, tables and charts to more complex Power BI dashboards to provide visual decision-making tools.
- Alignment and shared approach: sharing of data helps build confidence whether this is through scheduled data exchanges, joint verification exercises or evidence trails to support the data.
As the session finished, it was clear was that the data requirements are often similar between parties and whilst there are some differences across the board, there is significant cross over in many projects. A clear joint data strategy would eliminate some of this; it would set out a common language, asset data standards and importantly help to build understanding and manage shared expectations. Upfront preparation is essential to ensure the data collected is robust, and there is a common understanding from all parties as to why it was collected. Clear differentiation between data requirements at different parts of the PPP contract – i.e. monitoring, expiry and future services – will also be important going forward. If this recognition is achieved, then the data sets can create trust and transparency that leads to real collaboration within the partnership.
[1] https://www.ey.com/en_uk/newsroom/2024/09/uk-infrastructure-shortfall
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Jamie Marsh
