September 14, 2004

Fairfax County Government Center
12000 Government Center Parkway
Conference Room 5
Fairfax, Virginia

Alliance for Building Regulatory Reform in the Digital Age
U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
Fairfax County, Virginia
Commonwealth of Virginia
State of Maryland
New York City Department of Buildings
National Institute of Standards & Technology
National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards

 

---

The Purpose of the Summit is to:

To further advance the development of technologies and requirements needed to create a state-of-the-art integrated and interoperable building regulatory system by bringing togetherthe software industry, building regulatory officials, and construction industry.

I. Introduction & Purpose of Report

Agenda for Second Summit

II. Summit Background & Objectives

III. Program

IV. Next Steps

Attachments:

A – Alliance Members & Affiliates

B – Creating a State-of-the-Art Interoperable Building Regulatory System

C – Detailed Outline of Second Summit

D – Summit Handout Materials:  List of Contents of Second Summit Notebook

E – Registration List

F – State of Oregon Building Codes Division Permits Online Pilot Project

G – Information Technology Industry Advisory Subcommittee Members

H – NYC Vision of Interoperability for Capital Facilities & Building Regulatory Process

I – News Release – Software Incompatibility Adds Billions
to Construction, Building & Maintenance Costs

CREATING A STATE-OF-THE-ART INTEROPERABLE
BUILDING REGULATORY SYSTEM – II

FINAL REPORT ON THE
SECOND SUMMIT ON STREAMLINING THE BUILDING REGULATORY PROCESS THROUGH INTEROPERABILITY

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

In the United States today less than 8% of the 44,000 jurisdictions that adopt and enforce building codes make effective and efficient use of information technology in their building regulatory processes. Inefficient and ineffective codes administration and enforcement programs annually cost our nation’s $3 trillion construction industry and state and local governments over $15 billion a year in construction delays, missed business opportunities and unnecessary financing.  (Source – Alliance Report – "Business Case for Regulatory Streamlining")

In the summer of 2001, a public-private sector partnership, the Alliance for Building Regulatory Reform in the Digital Age, was formed to identify and reduce such unnecessary costs, enhance public safety and economic competitiveness in this nation by identifying and supporting actions that increase the effective and efficient use of information technology by state and local governments in their building codes adoption, administration and enforcement programs. Among the barriers identified by the Alliance in its first year of work was the lack of interoperable hardware and software for state and local codes administration and enforcement.

On September 24, 2003, representatives from the hardware, software, construction and building regulatory communities met in New York City to identify opportunities, challenges and potential solutions to bring about greater use of information technology in the building regulatory process by taking steps to facilitate industry’s production of interoperable hardware and software.

From late September 2003 to early September 2004, the 47 members (see Attachment A) of the Alliance for Building Regulatory Reform in the Digital Age worked together with the information technology industry and generated a series of work products identified at the New York City Summit to stimulate the development and use of interoperable hardware and software in the building regulatory process.

To showcase those work products and to identify additional actions needed to stimulate the development of a state-of-the-art integrated and interoperable building regulatory process for the nation, a Second Summit on Streamlining the Building Regulatory Process Through Interoperability was planned and held on September 14, 2004, at the Government Center Facility of Fairfax County, Virginia. Thirty-five representatives from the building regulatory, construction and information technology community participated in that program.

The purpose of this report is to provide the nation’s building regulatory, construction and information technology communities with:

1. A final report on the Second Summit and the barriers identified there. These are barriers that need to be overcome to enable the hardware and software industries to produce, and jurisdictions to acquire, interoperable software for use in the building regulatory processes.
2. Work Materials developed for and distributed at the Second Summit by the Alliance and by the Information Technology Industry Advisory Subcommittee of Alliance partner, National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards.
3. An agenda for cooperative actions that the Alliance and the above three communities can take to further advance the development, adoption and implementation of a state-of-the-art integrated and interoperable building regulatory process for our nation.

II. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SECOND SUMMIT

1. Background: Output and Work Product Generated from the First Summit – New York City, September 24, 2003. Late September 2003 – Summer 2004

The first Summit on Streamlining the Building Regulatory Process Through Interoperability was held in New York City September 24, 2003. The 55 New York City Summit attendees from the construction, information technology and building regulatory communities generated, through a series of breakout and discussion sessions, a list of three major recommendations for future Alliance actions. Those three recommended actions were:

1. Expand the Core Work Group that generated work materials for the First Summit to include a more diverse group of jurisdictions to represent different regions, size, and have them review the draft interoperability statement generated at the Summit, identify high priority use cases (data exchange requirements), process maps and look at gaps in the current software available for use in the building regulatory process.
2. Continue to refine the draft interoperability statement and support materials developed for the Summit and share them with a wider group of stakeholders. Establish a software industry advisory group both to define that industry’s role in this project and gain their commitment towards interoperability of their products.
3. Get jurisdictions across the nation to commit to interoperability and, when necessary, to reengineering their regulatory, administrative processes to facilitate and benchmark the process and make effective use of interoperable information technology as it becomes available. Included here is the need for jurisdictions to standardize their procurements and consider financial incentives to software suppliers who demonstrate interoperability successes.

With funding and in-kind services from Alliance partners and the I.T. community, between late September 2003 and the summer of 2004, the following work products were generated to support the above actions:

1. An Expanded Core Work Group (comprised of 18 jurisdictions and the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, NIST, FIATECH & NCSBCS) produced:

1. A Listing of High Priority Use Cases – User Functionality Priorities
2. Report on Gaps in Available Software – "Alliance Report on Characteristics and Capabilities Currently Available Commercial Software and Gaps in Current Approaches, Implementations and Technologies"
3. Interoperability Background Study – "A Look at Other Interoperability Efforts and Their Relevance to the Building Regulatory Process"
4. A Revised Draft Interoperability Statement

1. Revised Model Procurement Requirements for State and Local Governments to Acquire Hardware and Software for Use in their Building Regulatory Processes (subsequently endorsed again by NASCIO)
2. Updated the Business Case for Regulatory Streamlining

1. The Cost/Benefit Matrix for Home Builders and Jurisdictions to document savings from use of information technology in codes administration and enforcement.
2. Draft Matching Grant Criteria for Future Federal Funding of Streamlining Demonstration Grants for State and Local Governments
3. A report and work plan for "Future Work to Develop Technologies & Requirements Needed to Further Advance the Development of a State-of-the-Art Integrated and Interoperable Building Regulatory System"
4. A Final Report on the New York City Summit
5. Expanded listings of software and jurisdictions using software in their building codes adoption, administration and enforcement processes
6. The Alliance’s Third Annual Update CD-ROM Report to the Nation’s Governors, Mayors and County Administrators, "Enhancing Public Safety and Economic Competitiveness"

1. Draft XML Schema for on-line permit processing
2. Draft uniform addressing system for state and local governments and the software industry to use
3. Software to assess the ability of other software to interoperate with the draft XML schema for online permit processing

2. Background: Creating and Planning the Second Summit

The Alliance’s report, "Future Work to Develop Technologies & Requirements Needed to Further Advance the Development of a State-of-the-Art Integrated and Interoperable Building Regulatory System," called for the planning and conducting in late summer 2004 of a Second Summit on Streamlining the Building Regulatory Process Through Interoperability.

In the early summer of 2004, a small planning work group was established by the Alliance to draft the agenda and identify attendees for a second summit to share the work product generated from the New York City program and further advance interoperability.

Included in that planning group were representatives from: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Institute of Standards and Technology, New York City Department of Buildings, Fairfax County, Virginia, States of Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and NCSBCS and its Information Technology Industry Advisory Subcommittee.

In a series of conference calls and work sessions hosted by the Alliance Secretariat, the outline for a Second Summit was developed. Fairfax County, Virginia, offered to host the Second Summit and detailed Summit objectives and the agenda were set.

The objectives of the Second Summit adopted by the planning group were to speed the development of technologies and requirements needed to advance the creation of a state-of-the-art integrated and interoperable building regulatory system by bringing together software industry, building regulatory officials and the construction industry to:

• Share progress that had been made and review work products produced after the First Summit;
• Identify remaining barriers to an integrated and interoperable building regulatory system; and
• Build consensus and set future work agenda items to create the additional technologies and requirements needed to create a state-of-the-art integrated and interoperable building regulatory system.

The audience identified for the Second Summit was comprised of all of the attendees at the New York City Summit and other individuals representing a cross-section of the nation’s building regulatory, construction and information technology communities. A total of 150 invitations were issued out of which 35 were able to attend the September 14, 2004, Summit. (Twenty invitees sent regrets that they were unable to attend due to recent natural disasters.)

III. THE SECOND SUMMIT PROGRAM – SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

To fulfill the above objectives, the Alliance Secretariat drafted and the planning work group approved a detailed Summit Outline that spelled out the speakers, Alliance work products to be reviewed, and the objectives for each part of the day-long program. (See Attachment C.)

The Second Summit was divided into two segments. The morning program shared with attendees the outcome of the New York City Summit and the work products generated by the Alliance and its partners to implement the 2003 Summit’s recommended actions. The afternoon session shifted focus from "what’s been done" to promote interoperability to "what needs to be done" to build upon the accomplishments of the past year and speed the nation towards achieving the integrated and interoperable building regulatory system that is desired by all of the stakeholders.

Speakers for the Second Summit were selected from those who developed the work products shared at the Summit. David Engel, Director of HUD’s Division of Affordable Housing Research & Technology, was to provide the keynote address regarding HUD’s past activities in the area of regulatory streamlining through the use of information technology and the need for a state-of-the-art integrated and interoperable building regulatory system for the nation.

1. Summit Materials

The materials that were showcased at the Second Summit and included within the Second Summit’s Notebook (Attachment D list of contents included with this report) provided to all attendees, included two CD-ROM’s, reports and process maps from the following three categories of work items:

1. Work Product From First Summit - New York City, September 24, 2003

1. Nine building regulatory process maps and Process Function Descriptions
2. The March 23, 2004, Report on Creating A State-of-the-Art Interoperable Building Regulatory System (includes recommendations from First Summit)
3. Alliance State and Local Government Model Procurement Requirements to Acquire Hardware and Software for Use in their Codes Administration and Enforcement Programs.

    3.  Information Technology Industry Input – ITIA Subcommittee (Established in
         winter 2004 to provide home for the I.T. industry to follow up on First
         Summit recommendations.)

1. The ITIAS Building Regulatory Process Interoperability Framework Implementation Specification Version 1.0 (XML Schema for Online Permit Processing)
2. CD-ROM with software tool to assess degree of interoperability of other software packages
3. The outline of provisions for uniform addressing

The objectives of the morning session of the Second Summit were to update the participants on the work of the Alliance since the First Summit, to provide copies of all of the above Alliance and I.T. industry work products, and afford the audience the opportunity to ask questions regarding the development and use of the work products.

The morning program was divided into six presentations that included a welcome by the meeting’s hosts, a review of the objectives and agenda of the Second Summit, the keynote address by Mr. Engel, and three separate sessions describing the above three major work product groupings.

OPENING: Thirty-five representatives from the construction, information technology and building regulatory communities participated in the Summit which was held at the Fairfax County Government Center in Fairfax, Virginia. (See Attachment E for attendees list.)

The morning program opened with a Sponsor’s Welcome given on behalf of Fairfax County and Commonwealth of Virginia by Stephen Garnier and on behalf of the Alliance provided by NCSBCS Executive Director and Alliance Secretary, Robert Wible.

REVIEW OF PROGRAM AND UPDATE ON ALLIANCE WORK PRODUCTS: Mr. Wible reviewed the program’s objectives and the day’s agenda, followed by a detailed review of the contents of the Alliance’s Third Annual Report CD-ROM and background on the origin of the Second Summit, the first Summit work products and the contents of the attendees agenda package. Mr. Wible described the Alliance’s documentation of over $15 billion in annual savings to the construction industry and to state and local governments from effective and efficient use of information technology in the building regulatory process. He added that later in the program attendees would have the opportunity to hear from one of the authors of a recently released NIST study regarding the annual cost of $15.8 billion to the nation’s capital facilities industry due to the lack of interoperability in the design, construction, operation and maintenance and demolition of buildings.

Mr. Wible also described the outcome of the Alliance/NCSBCS/AIA Survey on state and local government use of online plan submittal, processing and storage processes.

In the question and answer session that followed this review, attendees were provided with information on how to use the Alliance work products in their communities or firms.

OVERVIEW ON HOW INTEROPERABILITY HELPS BUILDING DEPARTMENTS: The Summit moved onto an "Overview of How Interoperability Helps Building Departments work More Effectively and Efficiently" provided by Gary Basin, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services and Stephen Garnier, Fairfax County. Mr. Basin distributed a report on his state’s efforts to create a uniform region-wide online permit submission and processing network, "State of Oregon – Building Codes Division Permits Online Pilot Project - Requirements Document. (See Attachment F.) Mr. Basin described in detail the benefits of an interoperable online permitting system in his state and the steps that were being taken by Oregon to achieve that goal.

Mr. Garnier described Fairfax County’s extensive efforts to bring about uniformity in their zoning, planning, and building regulatory processes through the effective use of information technology. He noted the effectiveness in his County’s regulatory program of having access to the statewide online database of licensed contractors. He also stepped the attendees through the evolution of and contents of the Alliance’s Model Procurement Requirements that were based in large part on the procurements of Fairfax County and several jurisdictions in Silicon Valley, California.

Both Mr. Basin and Mr. Garnier stressed in their presentation the critical importance of involving the stakeholders in their jurisdictions in development of programs to streamline their building regulatory processes through the use of information technology.

During the question and answer session which followed, several attendees from local government noted the need for a "how to" guide to provide state and local governments with the step-by-step processes for building stakeholder support, adequate funding for and selecting effective and efficient hardware and software to streamline their building regulatory processes.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: The fifth presentation of the morning was a keynote address by David Engel of the HUD Office of Policy Development and Research. Mr. Engel traced HUD’s ongoing interest in the need for effective and efficient codes administration in the United States and the potential savings to homebuilders, consumers and to state and local governments from such programs. He described previous HUD-funded information technology initiatives through the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH Project) and how to access HUD streamlining information. Mr. Engel noted that HUD and others have documented that approximately a 25% saving of first costs can be achieved in residential construction if information technology is applied to all aspects of construction (including building regulatory processes).

Mr. Engel also noted the work being done by HUD’s America’s Affordable Homes Initiative and added that it perhaps would be beneficial to add to the HUD competitive grant criteria several questions regarding actions that state and local governments are taking to streamline their building regulatory processes through the effective use of information technology.

The keynoter closed his presentation by describing several challenges: the challenge of getting elected officials to understand the importance of, and then provide adequate funding for, information technology in their regulatory processes that oversee construction; the need to share information with state and local governments on effective, efficient and interoperable hardware and software that can be used in those processes; and getting the home building industry itself to make greater us of information technology. He invited the attendees and the Alliance to work with HUD towards meeting those challenges.

WORK OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY – THE NCSBCS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE: The final presentation of the morning session was a report by the Paul Watkins of MobileHWY who described the origins of and work done this past year by the NCSBCS Information Technology Industry Advisory Subcommittee which he chairs.

Mr. Watkins noted that the Subcommittee was established in November 2003 when NCSBCS responded to a request from the I.T. industry regarding one of the New York City Summit recommendations that a venue be provided for nation’s hardware and software industry to come together to work on Alliance products and streamlining recommendations. NCSBCS and the 38 members of the ITIA Subcommittee support the Subcommittee solely through NCSBCS membership and in-kind services. (See Attachment G for list of members of the Subcommittee.)

The Subcommittee’s work products were reviewed in detail by Mr. Watkins. He noted that the ITIAS took input from the Alliance’s Expanded Core Work Group in January and worked on three initiatives: the development of draft XML Schema for online permit processing, a common standard for addresses (in conjunction with the U.S. Postal Service and the International Postal Union) and a review of other regulating processes needing an interoperability standard. He noted that early on in their work the Subcommittee determined that their work products would support the promotion of interoperability, not by dictating how to design a system, but by providing a mechanism that can ascertain how those systems communicate with each other.

The draft ITIAS developed XML Schema for online permit processing, "Building Regulatory Process Interoperability Framework Implementation Specification Version 1.0," was reviewed in detail with the attendees. Mr. Watkins asked for attendee input on the draft following the Summit and noted that the next step regarding the schema was the adoption of the Version 1.0 by the Subcommittee and presentation to the NCSBCS membership for adoption and national distribution as a beta version. He noted that the ultimate goal was to upgrade the XML schema and make it available to state and local governments for them to ascertain which hardware and software was interoperable and would work with their building regulatory system. The schema also would be included in a future update of the Alliance’s Model Procurement Requirements.

Mr. Watkins went on to describe two other ITIAS work products, the draft uniform addressing requirements and the criteria to review software for interoperability.

In the question and answer session which followed, the Subcommittee Chairman answered questions regarding the content of the ITIAS work products, the process by which they would be adopted by NCSBCS and distributed, and the need to look at ways of coordinating ITIAS work products with other interoperability initiatives, including those of the International Alliance for Interoperability and FIATECH.

The Second Summit afternoon program involved three sessions all targeted at identifying barriers to interoperability and actions that the Alliance could take to overcome those barriers.

WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO INTEROPERBILITY & WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD THE ALLIANCE TAKE TO OVERCOME THEM: The Second Summit moved from presentations into a workshop setting to generate recommended next actions for the Alliance. Two facilitators handled the session, Tom Teague, Protesoft and Expanded Core Work Group Member, and Robert Wible, Alliance Secretary.

The first portion of the session involved leading the attendees in the identification of barriers being faced by government, the information technology industry, and by the construction community to interoperability. In a 45-minute session, 13 barriers to interoperability for government, 17 barriers for the information technology industry, and 13 barriers for the construction industry were identified. (The detailed lists are provided below.)

Taking those three lists, the attendees then spent the final hour of the program identifying and discussing actions the Alliance, in coordination with the information technology community, should take in the short and long term to overcome those barriers. Sixteen such actions were identified and are listed below as well.

CLOSING OF SECOND SUMMIT: The Summit attendees recommended that the output from the afternoon session be taken by the Alliance and distributed for further input in two additional venues: the upcoming Fourth National Forum on Building Smarter in the Digital Age, being held in Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 2004; and the distribution of the output to all of the Alliance partners and to the information technology community for their comments. The attendees also thought that the Alliance should take the action recommendations and place them into a prioritized list of actions. (A first draft at that list is provided at the end of this report.)

At the close of this session, NCSBCS noted that following those two input efforts the Alliance’s Coordinating and Planning Committee would meet to finalize the revised Alliance updated work plan to incorporate the Second Summit recommendations.

At 4:30 p.m. the Second Summit was concluded with a thank you statement by Summit cosponsor and Maryland chief building official, James Hanna; and by host Stephen Garnier from Fairfax County.

1. BARRIERS TO INTEROPERABILITY

• Lack of Government Funding - Frequently whatever funds are available has gone to cover non-related homeland security items.

• Fear of innovation - traditional mindsets.

• ROI – Return on Investment is unclear.

• Layering of policies, regulations and legislation make streamlining through I.T. and approach to interoperability difficult.

• Governance – inter-working of building departments within state or local government and lines of authority of state or local government I.T. structure/authority.

• Governments need to control data sometimes leads to over control.

• At times centralized I.T. doesn’t understand needs of building departments and relationship to economic development, viability and public safety of community.

• Security – Integrity – Confidentiality this can make system become overly complex.

• Lack of specifications and standards for interoperability.

• Clearer procurement procedures.

• Need for conformity assessment.

• Lack of awareness of the problem of need for interoperable hardware/software (head in the sand).

• Too narrow a view of interoperability - government needs to see broader perspective the cost savings of interoperability.

• Education of customers.

• Problem not perceived by users.

• Lack of Motivation of industry to produce interoperable hardware/software.

• Tendency to support status quo.

• Mismatch of the business cycles of I.T. industry and Government: I.T. industry business cycle for products is 18 months. Government business cycle is much longer. Government business cycles tend to be 4-5 years. In addition, when government purchases I.T., it expects that technology (including software) to last them from 10 to 15 years before having to be replaced.

• Legacy data and systems make purchase of new interoperable hardware/software more difficult.

• Lack of automation among jurisdictions (7-8% of jurisdictions now use I.T. in building regulatory process) keeps market size small.

• In face of lack of interoperability standards industry tries to remain flexible.

• Difficult to enter into partnering relationship with jurisdictions – competitive bidding keeps relationship competitive and makes it difficult for I.T. firms and jurisdictions to have an up front relationship or provide feedback.

• Industry participation is too narrow - need to extend interoperability in jurisdictions beyond the building regulatory departments/programs to cover other agencies.

• Vendors would be more interested in interoperability if hardware/software were more broadly applied.

• Who is responsible? Who is responsible for promoting interoperability? Government? Construction Industry? I.T. Industry? Who is responsible for purchasing? Demanding that IT is interoperable?

• Lack of good project management.

• Vendors need to see return on investment – ROI of producing interoperable hardware/software. (Also see motivation)

• Beneficiaries (construction industry and taxpayer) need to understand benefits from suppliers. The customer is too far away.

• Need to recognize that standard of living will improve with interoperable building regulatory and construction industry.

• Outsourcing and procurement needs are not aligned to needs of government, construction industry and I.T. community.

• Technology is not being used.

• Industry is extremely fragmented

• Large vs. small construction firms - Largest number firms are small, and most are too small to afford I.T. Small companies are generally computer illiterate.

• Lack of visionaries/key people.

• Government tends to focus on large firms - there are few of them. 70% of the construction industry are "Mom & Pop" firms.

• Complexity of websites of state and local governments due to security needs. Security needs to leave website useable.

• Multiple layers of government.

• Overlapping jurisdictions.

• Code complexity/differences.

• Conformity assessment - need for uniformity

• Lack of economic motivation on part of construction firms - has to be a willingness to spend. Has to be an economic benefit to "my" company.

• Projects versus Operation & Management.

• Construction industry wants to hear the benefit - is not concerned with how the benefit is there. Construction industry will pay for interoperable I.T. if they can be shown that they get benefit from interoperability.

• Disseminate information on ROI/benefits of interoperability to jurisdictions (use ICC, NCSBCS, and other Alliance Partners).

• Use centralized controls to promote interoperability

• Communication, common language between I.T. and users (regulators and construction industry).

• Need common language and strong project management.

• Continued development of open standards and specifications by NCSBCS Information Technology Industry Advisory Subcommittee (ITIAS).

• Continued development of business case for interoperable hardware/software.

• Develop publications and distribute to government, construction and I.T. to promote greater awareness of interoperability and how to acquire it.

• Share business case for interoperability. Develop and distribute a template.

• Open and early planning and RFI process.

• Document anecdotal cost/benefit cases - put in simple easily understood by all stakeholders.

• Re-examine stakeholders – Need much broader participation.

• Communication between databases.

• Work with IAI/FIATECH to coordinate standards and definitions.

• Obtain funding for outreach matching implementation grants to state and local governments.

• List supporting technologies/technical infrastructure.

• Widely disseminate output form the Second Summit - gain additional input from attendees, Alliance Partners and from participants at 4^th National Forum on Building Smarter in the Digital Age (September 30, 2004 in Salt Lake City, UT).

IV. NEXT STEPS FOR ALLIANCE BASED UPON SECOND SUMMIT OUTPUT

At the close of the Second Summit, participants concurred in the need to share the output from the program with the attendees at the Fourth National Forum on Building Smarter in the Digital Age and the I.T. community and then generate an updated action agenda built around the implementation of the recommended next steps for the Alliance that had been identified that afternoon.

As noted in the opening of this report, the third objective of this document is to offer the building regulatory, information technology and construction industries an outline for combined cooperative action to advance the creation of a state-of-the-art integrated and interoperable building regulatory system for our nation.

To facilitate that objective, based upon the output from the Second Summit, this report concludes with the following draft of recommended next steps for the Alliance and the stakeholders in the building regulatory, construction and information technology industries.

DRAFT RECOMMENDED STEP 1 ITEMS – Short-Term Actions – Next 6 months

• Produce a final report on the Second Summit and share Second Summit output at 4^th National Forum on Building Smarter in the Digital Age (Salt Lake City, September 30, 2004)

• Develop a publication and distribute to state and local government, construction and I.T. industries on how to promote greater awareness and use of interoperable hardware and software. Include in publication, additional business case information, return on investment data and documented anecdotal cost/benefits of streamlining through interoperability.

• Follow-up on recommendations contained in the Alliance/NCSBCS/AIA Survey on state and local government use of online plan submittal.

• Identify and obtain federal funding for matching streamlining grants to state and local governments.

• Update Model Procurement Requirements to include ITIAS interoperability standards.

DRAFT RECOMMENDED STEP 2 ITEMS - Mid-Term Actions – Next 12 months

• Continue to develop XML schema for building codes administration, enforcement hardware and software – coordinate with other interoperability efforts.

• Develop common language and strong project management for interoperability.

• Develop and make widely available a list supporting technology and technical information.

• Conduct field test of building homes in jurisdictions that have streamlined processes using cost benefit analysis matrix for homebuilders and government.

• Fund and conduct four pilots of matching streamlining grants to state and localities.

• Hold 5^th annual National Forum on Building Smarter in the Digital Age and CD-Rom report to governors, mayors and counties.

DRAFT RECOMMENDED STEP 3 ITEMS – Long-Term Actions – Next 24 months

• Work with state and local governments and Alliance partners to promote the development and use of centralized controls to promote interoperability.

• Fund and conduct matching streamlining grants to state and local governments.