ACT 1987
New Zealand Underground Asset Register
Sector Data Maturity
Assessment
AND MEETINGS
INFORMATION
Prepared for Wellington City Council
Prepared by Dr Kathryn Davies, Building Innovation Partnership,
University of Canterbury
October 2024
RELEASED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL

Executive summary
The New Zealand Underground Asset Register (NZUAR) project aims to create a
comprehensive, accurate, and accessible digital representation of underground assets in
New Zealand, beginning with a pilot implementation in Wel ington. This report
summarises findings from interviews with asset owners, contractors, designers, and
governance bodies, to assess the current state of underground asset data management,
1987
readiness for NZUAR implementation, and challenges or considerations for the wider  ACT
rol out of the system.
Key findings:
1.  There is a clear need for improved underground asset data management in New
Zealand. The current fragmented approach leads to safety risks, project delays,
MEETINGS
increased costs, and inefficiencies in planning and managing infrastructure.
2.  Contractors play a vital role in both generating and using asset data. Imp
AND  roving
processes for contractors to report discrepancies and provide accurate as-built
information will have a significant impact on improving overall data quality for the
sector.
3.  While there is general support for NZUAR, stakeholder readiness and enthusiasm
vary widely. Some organisations see clear benefits, while others have concerns about
data sharing, resource requirements, and disruption to existing pro
INFORMATION  cesses.
4.  The NZUAG Code of Practice provides a potential regulatory lever for
implementation, but may require strengthening to encourage NZUAR participation.
5.  Major challenges include data quality and completeness, interoperability between
OFFICIAL
systems, stakeholder engagement, balancing commercial interests with public good,
and establishing appropriate governance structures.
The report includes a set of 20 recommended actions to address needs expressed by the
organisations and participants involved. These recommendations span five key themes:
stakeholder engagement and change management, data standards and data quality, data
security and sharing, governance and regula
GOVERNMENT  tory framework, and national
implementation strategy. The actions emphasise developing a comprehensive change
management strategy, engaging with regulators and industry bodies, establishing clear
LOCAL
data governance roles, and creating user-friendly tools for data input, discrepancy
reporting and quality control. They also stress the importance of working with existing
THE
regulations, implementing robust security measures, and providing a clear roadmap for
national implementation. Many of the recommended actions are already underway as
part of the beta pilot implementation, but may need to be reevaluated for national
UNDER
implementation.
NZUAR has the potential to significantly improve underground asset management in New
Zealand, leading to enhanced safety, efficiency, and infrastructure planning. However, its
success depends on addressing key challenges, particularly around stakeholder
RELEASED
engagement, data standardisation, and governance. A shared commitment from
regulators, asset owners, and industry participants will be an important element in
realising the full benefits of this initiative.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
i

1.  Introduction
The New Zealand Underground Asset Register (NZUAR) is an initiative intended to create
a comprehensive, accurate, and accessible digital representation of underground assets
in New Zealand, beginning with a pilot implementation for the Wellington region. This
1987
report draws from a range of sources, to present a view of the sector’s readiness for the
implementation of NZUAR, and considerations for its future development.
ACT
Operators of utilities such as water services, electricity, gas and telecommunications are
the owners and core repositories of the underground asset data that is necessary to
NZUAR. In order to understand data maturity levels across utility providers that have
assets in the Wellington region, interviews were carried out with 19 representatives from
MEETINGS
8 organisations. Interviewees were asked questions about their GIS capability, including
the completeness and quality of data held by their organisation, data infrastr
AND  ucture, data
management processes, and readiness for data sharing.
Other industry participants have a significant role in the creation, maintenance and use of
underground asset data, and support asset owners in their data responsibilities. A smaller
selection of people holding relevant roles in this category were also interviewed. These
included four representatives from capital works and maintenance contr
INFORMATION  actors, design
consultants and surveyors.
Regulators and other authorities also have a core involvement in the use and
management of underground asset data, as well as in the creation and operation of
OFFICIAL
NZUAR. Groups with current or potential governance interests in NZUAR were canvassed,
through interviews with six people representing the New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group
(NZUAG), Te Waihanga New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Digital Built Aotearoa
and Wellington City Council.
This report provides a collated view of these various perspectives. Problems with the
current state of the sector are considered,
GOVERNMENT  together with identification of the ways in
which the proposed future state addresses them, to develop an argument for change.
The key user roles that need to be considered as part of the implementation process are
explored, followed by a mo
LOCAL  re detailed examination of the contractor role, which is a vital
element in the implementation process. A brief analysis of the NZUAG Code of Practice
THE
identifies both chal enges and potential levers for enabling change. The perspectives of a
selection of governance groups with current or potential interest in the project are
presented. The core challenges identified during the research are then explained,
UNDER
including aspects identified by al  of the various groups involved. Following a brief
summary of conclusions, a set of recommended actions is presented that responds to a
variety of the needs identified in the preceding sections.
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
2

2.  Problem statement
The desired future state once NZUAR is implemented is to create a comprehensive,
accurate, and accessible digital representation of all underground assets in New Zealand,
beginning with a pilot implementation for Wel ington. However, a more focused
description of the desired changes and motivation for pursuing the project is necessary to
generate appropriate responses to the problem. Issues faced as a result of shortcomings
1987
in the data and systems currently in use were col ated from interviewees, with their ideal ACT
future state. Subsequently, Wellington City Council carried out a survey of invited
participants to attempt to quantify the scale of the problem in the region.
2.1.  Current vs future state
MEETINGS
In the maturity assessment research, several participants expressed an attitude about the
state of underground assets in Wel ington which could be summarised as, “if it ain’t
AND
broke, don’t fix it”, where the current environment was not seen to be a problem and
change was considered unnecessary. To be able to counter this attitude and generate
enthusiasm for change in the sector, it is important to make the shortcomings of the
current situation plain, and to identify the ways in which the proposed future state
addresses them.
INFORMATION
The following table identifies key areas identified by one or more of the interviewees,
where the proposed NZUAR system provides a solution to a problem that exists in current
practice.
OFFICIAL

Current
Future
1.  Project delays: Progress on projects is  Reduced disruptions: Disruptions
unpredictable, causing disruption; when  caused by incorrect data or accidental
underground assets are not where they  strikes on underground assets during
GOVERNMENT
are expected to be, projects may be
construction and maintenance activities
paused while correct information is
are minimised; project durations are
obtained and verifi
LOCAL  ed, or halted
more certain because asset data is
altogether by strikes on assets.
available and correct.
THE
2.  Direct and indirect hazards: For all
Improved safety: Public and worker
assets, hazards accrue due to works
safety is enhanced by reducing the risk
that are
UNDER   more extensive or go on longer  of accidents related to underground
than necessary because correct data is  assets, and through reducing the time
not available. Uncertain location data
and scale needed for underground
for gas or electricity assets poses a
works.
RELEASED  direct safety hazard, with accidental
damage during excavation potentially
resulting in injuries or fatalities.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
3

3.  Increased costs: Encountering
Cost efficiency: Economic costs are
unforeseen issues during construction
lowered by improving the efficiency of
and maintenance activities is a common  construction projects and reducing
occurrence, leading to additional work  costs associated with damage to
and modifications and driving up costs.  underground assets.
4.  Barriers to data sharing: Lack of
Enhanced collaboration: Cooperation
1987
transparency in the communication
between various stakeholders is
ACT
process due to technological
improved, allowing utility companies,
limitations, privacy concerns, or
local authorities, and construction firms
organisational policies can lead to
to manage and protect underground
mistrust and reluctance to share
assets effectively.
information.
MEETINGS
5.  Inconsistent sharing of data: Asset data  Centralised data repository
AND  : A “single
is shared using multiple different
source of truth” is created with a
approaches depending on parties and
unified platform where all data
type of data involved; access to data is  regarding underground assets are
often based on pdf documents of
stored and can be easily accessed by
underground plans which provide
authorised parties.
INFORMATION
limited information and coverage.
6.  Fragmented data sharing: No common  Standardised data sharing: Asset data
approach exists for storing or
structures are standardised across
OFFICIAL
communicating data, leading to
different organisations, to facilitate
fragmented and potential y inconsistent  easy sharing and updating of
exchanges of information. Sharing
information. Sharing agreements are
agreements are ad hoc and diverse.
established and consistent.
7.  Static information: Many asset owners  Regular updates: Asset owners are able
GOVERNMENT
only share data in response to a specific  to update data at frequent and regular
request, so the validity of the
intervals, ensuring that the information
information is time
LOCAL  -limited.
available is always current and
accurate.
THE
8.  No clear approach for feedback:
Continuous data improvement:
External parties such as other utilities
Contractors are able to report
and th
UNDER  eir contractors have no route to  discrepancies between recorded asset
provide feedback to asset owners on
data and site conditions encountered
whether asset location data is correct
during excavation or maintenance
or not, or systems are email based and  work, with a clear and standardised
labour intensive for asset owners.
process for submitting, reviewing,
RELEASED
verifying, and acting upon feedback to
ensure that it is captured consistently
and dealt with in a timely manner.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
4

9.  Siloed data: Asset data for each utility is  Integrated datasets: Users can access
managed in isolation from other
underground asset data in the context
relevant geospatial datasets, potentially  of other geospatial information that
leading to gaps in planning and design.  may impact on design and management
of assets, e.g., groundwater, notable
trees, archaeological sites.
1987
10.  Insufficient use of technology: The
Potential for future technology:
ACT
current use of technology for managing  Adoption of mobile apps for easy field
and communicating asset information
access to data and data entry systems
seems in some cases to be insufficient,  provides opportunities for increased
not fully utilised, or outdated.
productivity. Greater use of GPS and
other highly accurate localisation
MEETINGS
technologies is an immediate
AND
improvement available for capturing
location data.  The NZUAR project also
lays the foundation for a transition to
digital twin or other technology to
support more extensive, dynamic
models of the undergr
INFORMATION  ound
infrastructure for use in planning,
analysis, and decision-making.
11.  Inconsistent standards and reporting:  Standa
OFFICIAL  rdised data col ection and
As-built standards and reporting
reporting: Clear and consistent
processes vary significantly across
standards and approaches are available
different asset owners, and between
for contractors and others in the field,
capital works and maintenance
to encourage timely and
projects, making it difficult for
comprehensive reporting.
GOVERNMENT
contractors to easily meet their
obligations.
LOCAL

THE
2.2.  Wel ington City Council survey
In order to clarify the motivation for the Wel ington pilot implementation, Wel ington City
Council carrie
UNDER  d out an online survey of 1100 invited participants in May-June 2024, based
largely on contacts provided in CAR applications through Submitica (Wel ington City
Council, 2024).
The survey gained 139 valid responses (12.6% response rate), which was considered
suffi
RELEASED  cient to provide a meaningful view of experience in the field. Survey questions were
generally quantitative in format, although the responses are based on respondent’s
recollections and estimates rather than financial or programme data. Sector-wide
impacts were estimated based on survey responses.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
5

The survey data revealed a significant and widespread problem with underground asset
data in Wellington. Approximately 70% of Corridor Access Requests (CARs) were
estimated to experience data issues, with about 50% resulting in physical issues in the
field. The key chal enges identified include missing utility data, inaccurate information,
insufficient detail, lack of data on other important ground conditions, and difficulty in
consuming available data. These issues affect a large proportion of work in the
underground space, leading to a range of negative outcomes that can occur
1987
simultaneously.
ACT
The impacts of these data problems appear to be substantial. In financial terms,
projections based on survey responses suggest a potential $66.4 million impact annually
across all relevant projects in Wellington. Time delays are significant, with over 10,000
days projected across the sector. The safety aspect is also concerning, with an estimated
3,400 unexpected strikes, near misses, and HSE incidents sector-wide. Other impacts
MEETINGS
include wasted planning efforts, increased site investigations, alterations to traffic
AND
management plans, and job replanning.

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
6

3.  User types
In the initial WCC briefing presentation document for the development of the
underground asset register, several user personas were identified. Personas can be
helpful by bringing common user needs to the forefront of planning before design has
started, improving understanding of potential requirements, and ensuring the product
and process align with user needs and expectations.
1987
Using data col ected during the maturity assessment research, the simple, generalised  ACT
personas that were initially provided have been developed and expanded, to produce the
following set of detailed user types. Role, expected skil  set, needs and concerns are given
for each user type, which provides a basis for development of strategies to ensure users
are receptive to the project and engaged with the outcomes, and that it meets the
MEETINGS
various needs of those involved.
AND
1.  Utility GIS Operator
Typical role: GIS/Data specialist responsible for developing and maintaining an
organisation’s GIS system.
Skill set: Proficient in various GIS software and databases; strong understanding of
asset data standards and best practices.
INFORMATION
Needs: Access to authoritative asset data; ability to upload and manage asset
data; tools to efficiently review, investigate, and address reported data issues.
Concerns: Ensuring data security and reliability for efficient operations; managing
workload and resources required for ongoing da
OFFICIAL  ta updates and synchronisation
with NZUAR.
2.  Utility Field User
Typical role: Field technician dealing with on-site inspections, maintenance, and
repairs of underground assets.
Skill set: Expertise in locating and ide
GOVERNMENT  ntifying underground utilities; proficiency
with mobile GIS tools.
Needs: Easy access to asset information in the field; consistent tools for reporting
site observations a
LOCAL  nd feedback on data accuracy.
Concerns:
THE   Safety during excavation and accuracy of asset location; inefficiencies in
reporting data discrepancies.
3.  Surveyor/Locator
Typic
UNDER  al role: Responsible for accurately capturing and recording the location and
details of underground assets, both for new installations and verification of
existing assets, working on behalf of design consultants, contractors or asset
owners.
RELEASED
Skil  set: Expertise in surveying techniques, proficiency with surveying equipment
(e.g., GPS, total stations), knowledge of GIS systems, understanding of utility
networks and infrastructure.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
7

Needs: Access to up-to-date asset information before beginning fieldwork; tools
to efficiently translate field measurements into formats compatible with GIS and
asset management systems; clear standards for data capture and reporting,
including required accuracy levels for different types of assets.
Concerns: Balancing the use of high-precision equipment with more accessible but
less accurate tools for different project needs; dealing with inconsistencies
between existing records and field observations.
1987
4.  Project Manager
ACT
Typical role: Oversees construction projects involving excavation and utility
coordination, responsible for complying with all client requirements such as
provision of as-built data to client and UAR.
Skil  set: Knowledge of construction practices, utility regulations, and project
MEETINGS
management.
Needs: Comprehensive view of underground assets in project area; a
AND bility to
coordinate with multiple stakeholders; efficient process for project close-out with
QA of as-built data.
Concerns: Project delays and cost overruns due to unexpected utility conflicts or
inaccurate asset data; inefficiencies in reporting.
5.  External Contractor
INFORMATION
Typical role: Performs excavation, construction, or maintenance work on behalf of
the utility or third-party clients.
Skill set: Expertise in safe digging practices, utility locating, and compliance with
OFFICIAL
local regulations.
Needs: Access to reliable asset data for safe project planning and execution; clear
process for reporting what they discover when excavation takes place, including
unidentified buried objects, wrongly recorded objects, and validation of observed
location of assets.
Concerns: Personal and worker safe
GOVERNMENT  ty in the event of an accidental strike; liability
for damages to underground assets; delays in receiving updated asset
information; inconsistencies between multiple data sources.
LOCAL
6.  Design Engineer
Typical ro
THE le: Designs new infrastructure or maintenance programmes that
integrate with existing underground assets.
Skill set: Proficiency in relevant design software; knowledge of engineering design
UNDER
principles; awareness of utility standards.
Needs: Access to accurate and detailed asset data for design purposes; ability to
view and query asset content for planning and analysis and integrate asset data
with design tools.
RELEASED
Concerns: Incomplete or outdated asset information leading to design errors,
delays in receiving data from multiple sources.
Concerns: Gaining insights from asset data for better decision-making; wasted
time and resources in carrying out validation of data received from asset owners.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
8

7.  Utility Company System Administrator
Typical role: Manages and maintains the software and hardware for the utility
company's internal GIS and asset management systems, and coordinates with the
central NZUAR system.
Skill set: Expertise in IT system administration, database management, network
security, and integration with external systems.
1987
Needs: Tools for monitoring internal system performance and availability; ability
to manage user accounts, roles, and permissions for utility company staff;
ACT
procedures for system backups, updates, and disaster recovery; secure and
efficient data exchange with the central NZUAR system; ensuring data quality and
consistency between internal systems and NZUAR.
Concerns: Protecting sensitive utility company data and ensuring secure access
MEETINGS
control; maintaining autonomy and control over internal systems while
collaborating with NZUAR; ensuring compatibility and interoperabilit
AND y between
internal systems and NZUAR.
8.  NZUAR System Administrator (DBAF)
Typical role: Manages and maintains the central NZUAR system on behalf of
Digital Built Aotearoa Foundation (DBAF).
Skill set: Expertise in IT system administration, database manag
INFORMATION ement, network
security, and user access control.
Needs: Tools for monitoring overall system performance and availability; ability to
manage accounts, roles, and permissions for users; procedures for system
OFFICIAL
backups, updates, and disaster recovery; coordination with individual utility
companies' system administrators; ensuring data quality and consistency across
the federated system.
Concerns: System vulnerabilities and potential security breaches; performance
issues and downtime impacting user access and data integrity; scalability and
capacity limitations as data volume
GOVERNMENT s and user numbers grow; compliance with
data privacy and protection regulations; maintaining trust and cooperation with
individual utility companies.
LOCAL
9.  Transport Corridor Manager
Typical ro
THE le: Statutory management and coordination of activities within the
transport corridor, including road maintenance, traffic management, and utility
works. This role is defined in the Code of Practice for Utility Operators Access to
Tran
UNDER sport Corridors and is provided by the Road Controlling Authority.
Skill set: Knowledge of transport corridor regulations, traffic engineering
principles, and utility installation and maintenance practices.
Needs: Comprehensive view of all assets within the road corridor; ability to
RELEASED
coordinate and schedule works to minimise disruption; tools for monitoring and
enforcing compliance with corridor access requirements; efficient process for
reviewing and approving corridor access requests.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
9

Concerns: Conflicting priorities and competing demands for corridor space;
potential for utility works to damage road infrastructure or cause traffic
disruptions; inadequate or inaccurate asset data leading to project delays or
safety risks.
10. Council Planning Officer
Typical role: Develops and implements land use plans, zoning regulations, and
1987
infrastructure strategies for the local council.
Skill set: Expertise in urban planning, policy development, and stakeholder
ACT
engagement; understanding of infrastructure planning and asset management
principles.
Needs: Access to comprehensive and up-to-date asset data for strategic planning
and decision-making; ability to analyse asset data in relation to land use,
MEETINGS
population growth, and development trends; tools for scenario model ing and
impact assessment.
AND
Concerns: Incomplete or inconsistent asset data leading to suboptimal planning
decisions; difficulty in coordinating infrastructure planning across multiple utility
providers; balancing competing priorities and stakeholder interests in land use
and infrastructure development.
11. Fire & Emergency NZ Personnel
INFORMATION
Typical role: Responds to emergencies involving underground utilities, such as gas
leaks or water main breaks, or including risks from underground utilities.
Skill set: Trained in emergency response procedures, hazard identification, and
OFFICIAL
safety protocols.
Needs: Quick access to critical asset information during emergencies, clear
indication of asset ownership and emergency contacts.
Concerns: Inaccurate or missing asset data that could compromise safety and
response effectiveness; difficulty in coordinating with multiple utility providers.
12. Climate/Resilience Researcher or C
GOVERNMENT  onsultant, or RCA resilience staff
Typical role: Studies the impact of climate change or other environmental
challenge on unde
LOCAL  rground utility infrastructure and develops resilience strategies.
Skill set: Knowledge of climate science or other relevant area of science; capability
in infrastru
THE  cture vulnerability assessment and geospatial analysis.
Needs: Access to comprehensive asset data for risk modelling and scenario
planning; ability to analyse asset data in relation to climate and environmental
UNDER
data.
Concerns: Lack of standardised and interoperable asset data formats; limited
access to asset condition and performance data for resilience assessments.
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
10

link to page 9
4.  Contractors’ role
Contractors play a significant role in both the production and use of underground asset
data. Collaboration between asset owners and contractors is therefore vital to ensure
effective asset data management.
Based on interviews with representatives from four contractor organisations, as well as
1987
input from the asset owners, the contractor role established in the list of User types
(Section 3) has been further developed to articulate the diverse activities of this user
ACT
group, and the associated issues.
Data collection: Gathering detailed information during the construction phase, which
includes the precise location, type, and specifications of the underground assets.
MEETINGS
Contractors are generally responsible for installing or repairing the assets, so they have
direct access to the most accurate information about the asset's location, type, and
AND
specifications.
o  Asset owners often described contractors as viewing data collection as a
secondary priority, compared to completing the physical work. This was disputed
by the contractors interviewed, who recognised it as an essential part of their
contract.
o  Quality and consistency of data col ection can vary depending o
INFORMATION  n the technology
used (e.g., GPS, total station, manual measurements)
o  Different asset owners have different requirements for data col ection, adding
complexity for contractors working across multiple projects.
OFFICIAL
Coordination: Actively collaborating with asset managers to ensure there is clear
communication of requirements, expectations, and any changes or issues that arise
during the course of the work. Effective coordination between contractors and asset
managers is essential to ensure that the data collected meets the utility organisation's
needs.
o  Contractors' primary relationships a
GOVERNMENT  re typically with project managers or contract
administrators rather than data teams, which can lead to miscommunication
about data needs or delays in coordination. In some cases, this can lead to
LOCAL
contractors and data teams circumventing reporting processes, which may have
contract imp
THE  lications.
Record keeping: Preparing as-built records of the assets instal ed or modified, ensuring
that the information reflects the actual built environment. As-built records prepared by
contractors ar
UNDER  e a key source of data for utility organisations' GIS and asset management
systems, and are commonly digitised to form part of the asset record.
o  Quality and timeliness of as-built records can be variable, with asset owners
asserting that it can take considerable effort to get some contractors to comply
RELEASED
with draughting standards in the drawings provided, or provide complete and
accurate information.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
11

Compliance with standards: Ensuring that the data collection and record-keeping
practices comply with standards specified by the asset owner, including requirements
around quality checking and timeliness of processes.
o  Compliance with standards is not always enforced by contract administrators,
potential y leading to inconsistencies in the quality and format of data provided by
different contractors.
o  Different asset owners use different standards, so for contractors working for
1987
multiple organisations there is an added layer of complexity to understand which ACT
requirements apply.
o  Some asset owners do not provide documented standards.
Utilisation of technology: Using technologies such as GPS, RFID tagging, scanning or
other systems where appropriate, to improve the accuracy of the asset data. A range of
MEETINGS
technologies are available to contractors and others in the sector, whether through in-
house or third-party expertise.
AND
o  Upgrading to digital methods was identified by asset owners as having the
potential to significantly improve data quality.
o  Adoption of these technologies is not yet widespread, and many contractors stil
rely on manual measurement and record-keeping methods.
o  Contractors believe asset owners and others may have unrealistic expectations of
what can be achieved through technology adoption.
INFORMATION
Updating asset data: Amending the GIS/asset register to reflect the work carried out. A
number of contractors have service agreements with asset owners that includes
responsibility for updating the asset data.  In these cas
OFFICIAL  es, a data team from the
contractor is given direct access to the asset owner's GIS.
o  Quality assurance processes are necessary for the asset owner to ensure that data
entered by the contractor is correct and complete.
o  Updated asset data is generally limited to the specific elements related to the
contracted work. The wider data set col ected and validated by contractors at the
GOVERNMENT
outset of a project, potentially also including rich 3D information, often remains
siloed within their own systems without being fully integrated into the asset
owners' records.
LOCAL
Reporting discrepancies: Informing the utility operator when errors or omissions in their
records are identi
THE  fied. This is a specific responsibility placed on contractors by the NZUAG
Code of Practice.
o  Contractors are often uncertain about what constitutes a reportable discrepancy
UNDER
when they encounter differences between plans and reality.
o  Contractors often lack clear, accessible processes for reporting unknown or
incorrectly recorded assets.
o  There's scepticism among contractors about whether reported discrepancies are
RELEASED
actual y used to update asset records.
o  Time constraints, especially in maintenance or emergency work, can make it
difficult to properly document and report discrepancies.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
12

5.  NZUAG Code of Practice
The New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG) Code of Practice for Utility Operators'
Access to Transport Corridors is a national framework that governs how utility operators
and corridor managers work together. The Code of Practice was developed as an
industry-led initiative with collaborative involvement from representatives of asset
owners, transport authorities and local government. It applies to all industry players and
1987
is mandated under the Utilities Access Act 2010. The Code is reviewed every three years ACT
and was updated most recently in 2019; its third review round is underway at present.
The NZUAG Code of Practice provides a framework that is directly relevant to the
development of NZUAR, and also has some implications for how it may be presented to,
or received by, asset owners. Key elements from the Code of Practice that are particularly
MEETINGS
relevant include:
Nationally consistent approach: The Code of Practice emphasises the require
AND  ment for a
national y consistent approach to managing access to transport corridors. The beta pilot
for the NZUAR federated model approach is Wellington-based; some asset owners are
concerned that it may result in an approach and set of requirements for work carried out
in Wel ington which does not align with the requirements for other areas of their
networks. Although there is an intention that the Wel ington pilot of NZUAR will serve as
INFORMATION
a test case for a national model, the lack of a national plan is a potential barrier for some
organisations.
Cooperative framework: NZUAG outlines a cooperative framework for corridor managers
OFFICIAL
and utility operators, promoting col aboration which is crucial for the success of NZUAR.
The Code of Practice requires that the applications process for any work carried out in the
transport corridors is streamlined, and delay is minimised—which can be achieved
through information sharing by means of a federated underground asset model. Engaging
with this model allows asset owners to demonstrate that they are meeting their
obligations under the Code of Practice.
GOVERNMENT
Rights of access: The Code of Practice defines the rights of access to transport corridors
for utility operators, whic
LOCAL h are necessary for managing underground assets effectively.
However, it also recognises the need to balance access rights with public interest and
safety, so that an
THE y disruption to the transport corridors is minimised. Participation in
NZUAR would demonstrate compliance with the Code of Practice because it provides a
framework for utility operators to coordinate their activities, communicate effectively
with corrido
UNDER  r managers, and follow best practices for safety and efficiency.
Quality management: The Code of Practice includes provisions for quality management
and compliance, ensuring that the data and processes meet high standards. Currently
there is considerable variability in data quality and quality management processes across
RELEASED
different asset owners, which mean that not al  of these standards are met.
Minimising disruptions: One of the goals of the Code of Practice is to keep disruptions to
transport corridors and utility services caused by work by another party to a minimum
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
13

while maintaining safety, aligning with the objectives of NZUAR to improve planning and
design and reduce accidental strikes on underground assets.
Updating records: The Code of Practice requires anyone working in the corridor to notify
asset owners of errors or omissions in their records, and for asset owners to update their
records when they are alerted to such an issue. This was identified by both asset owners
and contractors as a difficult requirement to meet.
1987

ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
14

6.  Governance interests
The implementation of a shared infrastructure project such as NZUAR sits across a range
of governance interests, funding, and stakeholder management. A key aspect of the
governance structure for NZUAR is the potential need for an independent entity to
oversee its development and operation. This approach could help ensure that the project
maintains its focus on public good outcomes while balancing the interests of multiple
1987
stakeholders. The complex nature of this initiative also requires careful consideration of  ACT
various governmental interests and economic regulators.
The fol owing sections explore the perspectives and roles of various key stakeholders in
the beta pilot of the NZUAR project and those with interests in further development into
a national implementation. Interviewees included two representatives of Wel ington City
MEETINGS
Council, one of the trustees of DBAF, two representatives of NZUAG and one
representative of Infracom. Other information was drawn from publicly available
AND
resources on the relevant organisational websites. Interviewees were primarily
concerned with their own organisations, but in some cases expressed views on other
stakeholders. The fol owing discussion is based on analysis of the col ected data, and does
not necessarily represent the views of the organisation described.
6.1.  Wel ington City Council (WCC)
INFORMATION
Wel ington City Council (WCC) has been instrumental in the development of the NZUAR
to date. Together with Digital Built Aotearoa Foundation (DBAF), they are the developers
of the beta pilot that is operating in the Wel ington region.
OFFICIAL
6.1.1.  WCC project motivation
In 2020, WCC conducted a survey of 16km of the city using GPR, LiDAR and other
technologies to provide a better understanding of underground infrastructure. This was
inspired by lessons learned from Sydney Light Rail, and aimed to reduce risks and
improve efficiency for future infrastructure
GOVERNMENT   projects. About 100 anomalies were
identified, including a collapsed water main that was able to be replaced efficiently due
to the knowledge gained in the survey. Recognising the benefits of that exercise, WCC
decided to develop a mor
LOCAL  e comprehensive underground asset register. Key objectives
were to make it accessible for all parties, to manage access and storage in a standard
THE
way, and to provide for improving and updating of information in perpetuity. It was also
intended to be independent of the people working on it, so that future generations can
build on and access the information.
UNDER
6.1.2.  Pilot programme governance structure
The Wellington pilot programme was initiated with $4 million in funding from the
Department of Internal Affairs in the previous Labour Government’s Better Off funding
pro
RELEASED  gramme, to create a pilot implementation in Wel ington that could potentially be
scaled nationally. Support was continued by the current coalition Government. A
governance group within the council oversees the project, to ensure robust processes,
solid reporting, and proper expenditure. The governance group provides input on areas
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
15

such as auditing, procurement, finance, and technology. A technical reference steering
group includes representatives from various sectors and stakeholders and provides
direction on prioritisation of the development roadmap. The project team is working with
national bodies such as NZ Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG), National Utility Locating
Contractors Association (NULCA) and Civil Contracting NZ, as well as individual utilities
companies and contractors, to develop principles and standards for the system. They
have also established MOUs with key stakeholders including Wellington Water and
1987
Powerco, that set up pathways for collaboration. The project has been written into
Wel ington City's Long Term Plan and Infrastructure Strategy.
ACT
Wellington was one of 10 cities internationally chosen by the Bloomberg Harvard City
Leadership Initiative this year, with the NZUAR forming a key focus. The WCC project
team believes that involvement in the initiative provided valuable methodological
support, particularly around change management, which has been a significant focus of
MEETINGS
their work. The programme helped them to look beyond just local value for ratepayers,
AND
which was important for a project with national implications, and allowed them to access
best practices from other locations that have dealt with complex problems. They consider
that association with Harvard and Bloomberg also lent credibility to the project and
helped gain attention from stakeholders who might have been otherwise hesitant.
6.1.3.  Considerations for programme expansion
INFORMATION
At the current stage of the beta pilot project, the WCC team is considering how the
governance structure might need to adapt to support national implementation. The team
has developed the project based on the Gemini Principles (see Appendix A) to establish a
robust framework to guide the system's development
OFFICIAL  and operation. This principles-
based approach, developed in col aboration with key stakeholders such as NZUAG,
ensures that decision-making remains aligned with the project's core objectives as it
evolves. It also provides a connection with other projects around digital resources that
are based on the same principles. The emphasis on public good outcomes, rather than
purely commercial interests, highlights the project's commitment to creating lasting value
GOVERNMENT
for the broader community.
The WCC team recognises that they may need to explore alternative rollout strategies or
“lift and shift” ownership
LOCAL  of the programme to another entity for it to scale nationally.
Other RCAs have been approached, to explore their interest in the system and identify
what changes ma
THE  y be necessary to meet their needs.  This forward-looking perspective,
combined with the project's col aborative approach and its integration into Wel ington
City's long-term planning documents, would appear to position it wel  for future growth.
However, it
UNDER  also highlights the complexity of managing a system that must serve multiple
stakeholders while maintaining its focus on public good outcomes in the long term.
The team envisage a number of longer-term applications that could be developed from
the NZUAR. The underground asset data may be used as a “mesh” to which IoT devices
cou
RELEASED  ld be attached, opening up possibilities for real-time monitoring and smart city
applications. There may also be opportunities for software developers and asset
managers to create new tools that make this data available for improved asset
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
16

management planning. As the data set grows, companies may be able to offer advanced
analytics services, helping utilities and city planners gain deeper insights from the data.
6.2.  Digital Built Aotearoa Foundation (DBAF)
Digital Built Aotearoa Foundation (DBAF) is a charitable trust established to provide a
repository of digital artifacts in the construction sector that have a significant benefit if
managed as a public good.
1987
6.2.1.  Purpose of DBAF
ACT
DBAF was established to create an independent entity that could take responsibility for
hosting and maintaining systems with national value, rather than having them owned by
a government department or commercial entity whose focus may shift. The trust
structure is designed to provide enduring capability that is not influenced by changing
MEETINGS
priorities or interests. As well as collaborating in the development of the NZUAR, DBAF
AND
also hosts the National Forward Works Viewer (NFWV), a platform used by a number of
city councils, utility companies, developers and construction companies across New
Zealand, to support information sharing for better coordination and planning of
infrastructure work. A long-term vision for DBAF is to integrate NFWV and NZUAR into an
integrated system.
In relation to the NZUAR project, DBAF contracts out operations to Ope
INFORMATION  n Plan, a
Christchurch-based consultancy, while retaining stewardship and control of the platform
and associated intellectual property. Under this framework, any data provided for NZUAR
remains in the ownership of the asset owner supplying it, with DBAF and NZUAR
OFFICIAL
providing a platform for federating the data and facilitating access and management.
As wel  as holding the intel ectual property of the technical platform, DBAF also operates
as a Data Trust. Under this framework, data owners can allow the Data Trustee to make
decisions about the data on their behalf. This wil  general y be related to how and with
whom the data may be shared. In this manner, DBAF has agreements with asset owners
specifying access to the owners’ data for the
GOVERNMENT   express purpose of operating the NZUAR.
This approach is intended to reduce the administrative burden on the data owner, while
providing security.
LOCAL
6.2.2.  Advantages of a charitable trust
THE
An independent structure such as DBAF provides a range of advantages in the
establishment of NZUAR. The primary benefit, as noted above, is ensuring that critical
infrastructure data and systems remain in the public domain rather than being control ed
UNDER
by commercial or government interests. Without the pressure of short-term commercial
or political goals, the trust can focus on long-term outcomes that benefit the entire sector
and country. Being separate from government departments provides a level of
consistency and means the trust's priorities and funding are less likely to be affected by
chan
RELEASED  ges in political leadership or policy. By being independent, DBAF can provide a
neutral platform that different stakeholders (utilities, local governments, contractors) can
trust and participate in, without concerns about competitive advantage.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
17

Trustees emphasise that as a charitable trust, any surplus funds DBAF generates are
available to be reinvested into improving the system, expanding its use, or reducing
subscription costs for users, rather than producing a profit or dividends as would be
required of a commercial entity. DBAF is also committed to using open-source software,
which can promote transparency and al ow for broader col aboration and innovation.
DBAF’s independence may allow it to be more agile and able to adapt to new
technologies and approaches than councils or central government; however, this
1987
depends on it having sufficient resources for development.
ACT
6.2.3.  Future governance considerations
The trustees believe that DBAF needs to take a stronger leadership role as NZUAR
expands beyond Wel ington, with WCC stepping back to a supporting role. At the
moment, the system is perceived as a WCC initiative; increasing the independence of
MEETINGS
NZUAR is likely to support uptake in other regions. DBAF is currently scaled for the pilot
development of NZUAR and thus has limited resources and lacks visibility in o
AND  ther
regions; this constrains its ability to promote the project and engage with stakeholders
across the country. Although the NFWV has been in existence for over 10 years, DBAF is a
relatively new entity, and it is still developing connections with the infrastructure sector
to achieve wider support for NZUAR. It was suggested that endorsement from central
government for NZUAR, while not essential for the long-term success of the project,
INFORMATION
would significantly help adoption, and would be welcomed by DBAF.
DBAF currently has two trustees, who believe that the current governance structure and
processes are appropriate to the age and stage of the foundation; however, they expect
more members wil  be brought onto the Trust Board i
OFFICIAL n due course. New members will
not necessarily be drawn from parties involved in NZUAR or NFWV, but wil  be selected to
support the needs of DBAF as it expands.
With the development of NZUAR beyond the Wellington beta pilot, an element of tension
is emerging between the Trust Board’s intention of maintaining DBAF's independence,
and the desire of stakeholders (e.g., NZUAG
GOVERNMENT   or asset owners, regulators) to be
represented in the decision-making around NZUAR. Effective stakeholder engagement
will require DBAF to manage the asset register in a way that balances the diverse needs
and interests of asset own
LOCAL  ers, regulators, local governments, and industry groups,
without compromising the autonomy of the Trust. This may involve creating advisory
boards or commi
THE ttees with stakeholder representatives to ensure the different
perspectives are included. Accountability and transparency wil  be essential in this
process to maintain trust and credibility. Clear reporting structures and performance
metrics, ope
UNDER  n communication about decision-making processes, and robust policies for
identifying and managing potential conflicts of interest will all play a part in establishing
DBAF as it engages with the various stakeholder interests.
6.3.  Ne
RELEASED  w Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG)
The New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG) is responsible for developing and
maintaining the National Code of Practice, and has an advisory role for corridor managers
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
18

and utility owners/operators. Two representatives of NZUAG were interviewed for this
report.
6.3.1.  NZUAG support for NZUAR
The NZUAG representatives expressed support for NZUAR initiative, recognising its
potential benefits for the utilities sector. They see NZUAR as a valuable tool that could
enhance cooperation and efficiency in managing underground assets. They expressed a
1987
wil ingness to facilitate the project's adoption among members and to help guide national
changes that would support its implementation.
ACT
However, NZUAG's support is tempered by a realistic understanding of the chal enges
involved and the limitations of their own advisory role. While they are enthusiastic about
the concept, there is caution regarding the specifics of implementation and governance.
MEETINGS
NZUAG sees varying levels of readiness among different stakeholders and potential
resistance from some industry players. Their support includes advocating for broader
AND
governmental and regulatory backing, acknowledging that their endorsement alone is
insufficient for the project's success.
NZUAG is interested in how they can contribute within their existing framework. This
includes looking for ways to align NZUAR with the Code of Practice, facilitating industry
discussions, and potential y helping to develop or endorse related standards and
frameworks. While they do not believe it is appropriate that they manda
INFORMATION  te adoption of
NZUAR, NZUAG is open to the project's evolution and is prepared to adapt their support
as the tool develops, so that they play a constructive role in its development.
6.3.2.  NZUAG chal enges or concerns
OFFICIAL
The NZUAG representatives identified several chal enges and concerns that they feel
need to be addressed for successful implementation of NZUAR. A primary concern is the
varying levels of data maturity and readiness across different utility operators and
regions. NZUAG believes that some organisations, particularly in less urban areas, may
struggle with the technical and financial re
GOVERNMENT quirements of participating in a national asset
register. This disparity could lead to inconsistent adoption and data quality, potentially
undermining the effectiveness of the system.
LOCAL
Another significant chal enge is the issue of data governance and security. There are
worries about the potential misuse of data, and questions about liability if shared data
THE
leads to incorrect decisions or actions. Some NZUAG members, especially those in the
telecommunications sector, have also expressed concerns about sharing what may be
considered c
UNDER  ommercially sensitive information. NZUAG emphasises that clear protocols
for data sharing, use, and protection need to be established to address these concerns
and build trust among participants.
NZUAG also highlights the chal enge of sustaining engagement and ensuring ongoing data
quali
RELEASED  ty improvement. The current lack of enforcement mechanisms for data reporting
and quality management is seen as a potential weakness. While the Code of Practice
provides a framework for cooperation, NZUAG's limited authority means it cannot
compel compliance or improvements. The group believes that there is a need for utility
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
19

link to page 5
owner membership as part of the project governance group, to ensure their interests are
represented.
6.4.  Infrastructure Commission (Infracom)
Te Waihanga, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission (Infracom) is a Crown entity
tasked providing advice to the government on infrastructure planning and strategy,
including identifying priorities for infrastructure and providing support services to current
1987
and proposed infrastructure projects. It is responsible for developing the National
ACT
Infrastructure Plan.
6.4.1.  Context
The strategy document Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa 2022–2052 New Zealand
Infrastructure Strategy (New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, 2022) stresses the
MEETINGS
importance of reliable information to support good decision-making in infrastructure
AND
development. To support this, the strategy recommends improving infrastructure
performance reporting and analysis across projects, networks, and systems. This need is
directly connected with the goals of NZUAR. While the described future state of NZUAR
(see Section 2.1) is primarily directed at delivering the information requirements of those
responsible for and working within the transport corridors, it also makes information on
existing utilities infrastructure available to support wider decision maki
INFORMATION  ng. In the recent
report Paying it Forward (New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, 2024), similar themes
were noted around the need for a better understanding of what infrastructure already
exists, to help drive efforts around renewing existing infrastructure, developing new
infrastructure, and improving resilience to natural haza
OFFICIAL  rds.
Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa also places a strong emphasis on accelerating adoption
and use of digital technologies in infrastructure planning, delivery, and management. The
strategy document notes that investing in digital innovation may deliver better returns
than investing in physical infrastructure, because digital solutions can help operators and
regulators to manage existing infrastructure systems more effectively. This is also
GOVERNMENT
explored in an earlier report Preparing for technological change in the infrastructure
sector (Beca Ltd and Polis Consulting Group, 2021) which suggests that the Infrastructure
Commission needs to bot
LOCAL h prepare for and facilitate technological change in the sector. A
key recommendation of that report was to move to an open data environment and
create an independe
THE  nt data trust to govern information col ected, which aligns with the
NZUAR development and the role of DBAF. Another issue raised in both this report and
the strategy document was the need to consider data ownership and sovereignty issues,
with a partic
UNDER  ular focus on incorporating Te Ao Māori and mātauranga into the
management of infrastructure data.
6.4.2.  Infracom perspective on NZUAR
At a
RELEASED   conceptual level, Infracom recognises the potential of NZUAR to improve
infrastructure productivity, but is stil  considering what its role could be. There are
concerns about appearing to favour one specific solution or provider, so the current
direction is more inclined towards a championing or convening role rather than a
prescriptive one. If a more prescriptive approach was needed for NZUAR implementation,
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
20

it was suggested that another agency, for example MBIE, may be better positioned to
lead that.
Infracom requires more information and clarity on various aspects of the project before
determining the level of involvement or support it could provide for a national rollout of
NZUAR. A clear accounting of costs and benefits would be necessary, as well as answers
to several key questions.
1987
•  Why hasn't a national underground asset register been implemented before now?  ACT
•  What has been the barrier to adoption of this type of system previously?
•  Is a national model necessary, or could a regional approach work?
•  Who is best positioned to champion this initiative at a national level?
The upcoming National Infrastructure Plan was noted as a potential pathway for building
MEETINGS
out the NZUAR national y.
AND
6.5.  Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)
Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) is a government department responsible for a
variety of functions related to land and geographic information, including geodetic and
cadastral survey systems and topographic information. It maintains a range of services for
managing and sharing geospatial data. No-one from LINZ was interviewe
INFORMATION  d for this
research; information has been drawn from other interviewee’s comments and the LINZ
website.
6.5.1.  Industry concerns
OFFICIAL
LINZ has been included in this review because several interviewees suggested that it
provides an apparently logical location for NZUAR. Despite this evident fit, interviewees
went on to express concerns about the future of NZUAR if it were in LINZ ownership.
It was implied that LINZ's core competencies and priorities would not align wel  with the
needs of managing an underground asset re
GOVERNMENT  gister system. Because of the range of
activities already undertaken by LINZ, the addition of the NZUAR would stretch the
resourcing available and potential y lead to limited development and support. There is no
confidence across the sec
LOCAL tor that NZUAR would thrive under LINZ stewardship, because it
is not connected to their existing operations.
THE

UNDER
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
21

7.  Chal enges
A variety of challenges were identified from the maturity assessment research across the
selected set of asset owners. Almost all of the chal enges noted apply across the board,
although not always to the same degree for every asset owner. None of the organisations
could be considered to be managing their data to the desired standard, but each of them
1987
is performing wel  in at least one aspect.
ACT
Several additional chal enges were identified following interviews with contractors,
designers and other parties involved; some of the chal enges faced by asset owners were
expanded to include the perspective of these groups. Further points were raised in
interviews with bodies with direct or indirect governance interests.
MEETINGS
Many of the chal enges identified several or al  of the groups interviewed, and very few
are unique to one type. They will all require a coordinated effort from regulat
AND  ory agencies
(local and central government), public and private companies, contractors, designers and
other stakeholders, to create a robust and efficient federated underground asset model.
1.  Data quality and completeness: Ensuring the data is accurate, up-to-date, and
complete is a primary challenge.
o  Data may be required from different sources within an asset ow
INFORMATION  ner’s databases,
and need to be consolidated. For example, some organisations’ data
completeness relies on availability of as-builts or underground maps for data that
is not included in the GIS; some have potentially relevant data recorded in
OFFICIAL
inspection or maintenance records that are not fed back to the GIS.
o  Older records may be missing or incomplete. This is a minor challenge that will be
improved through use of the NZUAR as most asset owners are confident that they
have the vast majority of their records included in their GIS, and missing or
inaccurate data wil  be improved through the use of the system.
2.  Interoperability and standardisation: D
GOVERNMENT  ifferent organisations use various formats to
manage their asset data, to meet their specific needs. Adopting a standardised format
for data sharing is essential for the interoperability of the system, but may require
LOCAL
changes within a company‘s operations that do not directly serve the company’s asset
data needs.
THE
o  Asset owners do not typically include a data quality attribute in their GIS records.
Within the NZUAR, this attribute is necessary for the progressive improvement
and r
UNDER  eliability of the data.
3.  Stakeholder engagement: Gaining cooperation and buy-in from stakeholders,
including asset owners and contracting firms, is crucial. This requires aligning interests
and overcoming resistance to change.
RELEASED  o  Within asset owners’ organisations, asset data is sometimes viewed as the
responsibility of GIS teams, without recognition of the role played by project
management roles in implementing and enforcing contracts that prescribe data
standards and processes.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
22

o  QA processes tend to focus on the data entry and completeness of records, with
limited checking to ensure that records match the reality of the built asset.
o  If NZUAR is to become a “one stop shop” for users, it needs to provide at least the
level of functionality currently available through other systems.
o  Many asset owners are experiencing “request fatigue” from various initiatives
requiring their data or participation, most commonly around resilience or
emergency response. NZUAR needs to clearly differentiate its value proposition
1987
and minimise additional burdens on already stretched resources within these
organisations.
ACT
4.  Legislative support: While the requirements of the NZUAG Code of Practice and the
responsibilities of the corridor owner provide leverage and authority for instigating
NZUAR, policies and contracts to support the sharing and utilisation of underground
asset data will also be necessary.
MEETINGS
o  Commercial and security concerns related to digital data access will need to be
AND
addressed.
5.  Technology adoption and integration: For those organisations that are in transition
from legacy GIS systems to new digital platforms, the change management task is
likely to be already complex, requiring training and adjustments in operational
procedures. Adding changes driven by the implementation of NZUAR may place
INFORMATION
additional pressure on the transition.
o  Most asset owners will not face this issue as they are using GIS tools that are well-
established within their organisations. However, several organisations
interviewed have either identified a need to cha
OFFICIAL  nge their current GIS in the near
future, or have recently undertaken a change.
6.  Security and privacy concerns: Security of the data is important to asset owners,
especially when it involves critical infrastructure.
o  Unauthorised access, malicious damage and cyber threats were all factors raised.
o  Commercial sensitivity of data was id
GOVERNMENT  entified by several organisations as an
important concern, particularly for the telecommunications sector. However,
others noted that this was more of a perceived risk than an actual risk because
much of the data c
LOCAL  onsidered commercially sensitive could be accessed through
other routes.
THE
7.  Cross-boundary projects: Projects that span areas or jurisdictions managed by
multiple councils need to be considered and managed appropriately.
o  Give
UNDER n the initial NZUAR implementation is focused on Wel ington, asset owners
and contractors working across New Zealand are wary of regional solutions that
may require them to use different processes in different areas.
o  Asset owners and contractors would like clarity about sharing data across
jurisdictional boundaries, particularly if different areas have different levels of
RELEASED
data security, data standards or sharing agreements, or require coordination with
multiple asset owners and corridor managers.
8.  Reporting discrepancies: Contractors face significant difficulties in reporting
discrepancies between recorded asset data and actual field conditions, and asset
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
23

owners have chal enges in effectively handling and acting on discrepancy reports from
contractors.
o  Many asset owners do not have easily accessible, standardised methods for
contractors to report discrepancies observed during excavation or maintenance
work. Where systems do exist, they may vary between asset owners, adding
complexity for contractors who work with multiple utilities.
o  Contractors are often unsure about what level of discrepancy warrants reporting.
1987
The NZUAG Code of Practice requires reporting of errors or omissions, but doesn't ACT
specify thresholds (i.e., how far off does a location need to be to qualify as an
error?).
o  Contractors consider they are not resourced to report discrepancies outside of
formal as-built processes. For example, when unexpected assets are found, there
may not be time in the job to bring in a surveyor before work needs to be closed
MEETINGS
up.
o  Contractors often don't receive confirmation that their reports have be
AND  en
received or acted upon, leading to scepticism about whether reporting is
worthwhile.
o  Asset owners’ uncertainty about the accuracy of reported discrepancies, and the
associated safety or legal implications, leads to reluctance to update records,
particularly when based on single point observations.
INFORMATION
o  The high volume of reports with varying quality and detail can overwhelm GIS and
asset management teams. Verifying reported discrepancies generally requires
resource-intensive field checks, and integrating point observations into existing
systems can be technically challenging.
OFFICIAL
9.  Data reuse and integration: Valuable data collected during projects, including rich 3D
data, often remains siloed within design consultants and contractors, without being
shared or incorporated into central asset records.
o  The databases created by designers and contractors during projects is often more
detailed and accurate than what the
GOVERNMENT   asset owners themselves have, with rich 3D
data.
o  There is currently no mechanism for this project data to be fed back into the
central asset regis
LOCAL ter, resulting in a missed opportunity to improve overall data
quality and create a more comprehensive digital representation of assets.
THE
10. Enforcing standards and data quality: While data standards and requirements are
often specified in contracts, enforcement of these standards is inconsistent.
o  Comp
UNDER  liance with standards is not always enforced, potentially leading to
inconsistencies in the quality and format of data provided by different
contractors.
o  The development of automated solutions to validate submissions against a
structured schema was suggested as an approach to improve data standards,
RELEASED
similar to the Land Online system for land records.
11. Balancing commercial interests and public good:  Developing NZUAR as a public
system creates a tension with existing commercial systems, including beforeUdig and
Reveal.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
24

o  Articulating the added value of NZUAR as a part of this ecosystem, without
undermining existing investments, is needed to improve industry support. NZUAR
needs to be positioned as complementary to these systems rather than
competitive, which will require careful navigation of commercial interests.
o  Current functions are managed primarily through beforeUdig; asset owners and
others who have entrenched support for beforeUdig may be reluctant to support
changes.
1987
o  Asset owners require clarity about how their data will be used, and several noted
that commercial models did not provide certainty of where their data would end ACT
up or how it may be exploited or monetised beyond the purpose for which it was
provided.
o  Commercial systems have developed strong industry connections (particularly in
the case of beforeUdig) and can provide advanced features beyond the current
MEETINGS
scope of NZUAR (e.g., Reveal)
o  There are significant risks from a national interest perspective if critic
AND  al
infrastructure information becomes dependent on commercial enterprises.
12. Stakeholder buy-in and engagement: Gaining support and active participation from a
diverse range of stakeholders is critical for the success of NZUAR, but presents several
challenges.
o  Major cities play a key role in driving adoption and setting stand
INFORMATION  ards for NZUAR
implementation. The participation of larger urban centres can start to generate
critical mass for the project and influence smaller municipalities and utilities.
However, each major city may have unique requirements or existing systems,
OFFICIAL
making alignment challenging.
o  Smaller councils and utilities may struggle to see immediate value in NZUAR
participation, especially if they have limited resources or simpler asset
management needs. Articulating tangible benefits and providing support for these
stakeholders will be necessary to ensure comprehensive coverage.
o  Asset owners may be reluctant to commit resources to what they perceive as
GOVERNMENT
another data sharing initiative without clear evidence of long-term sustainability
and widespread adoption. Demonstrating a stable governance model and funding
mechanism will he
LOCAL  lp to build confidence.
o  Some stakeholders may view NZUAR as duplicating or competing with existing
systems th
THE  ey have invested in, rather than as a complementary tool. Careful
messaging and integration strategies are needed to address these concerns.
13. Expansion into other datasets: To establish NZUAR as a unified repository for
UNDER
underground asset data, additional datasets such as  groundwater, notable trees, and
archaeological sites could be included. While this adds functionality, it introduces
greater complexity and risks losing focus on the primary functionality of the system.
o  Expanding the system's scope could potential y divert resources from the core
RELEASED
objective of managing and improving underground asset data.
o  Māori interests and data sovereignty need to be considered around the use and
application of wider datasets, so engagement with iwi and hapū is an essential
part of the development.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
25

8.  Conclusions
The initial purpose of this research was to explore the nature and availability of current
asset data held by underground asset owners in the Wel ington region, and their
associated processes. As it became evident that the responsibilities and obligations in this
area extended beyond this group, the investigation was subsequently expanded to
include representation from contractors, designers and others involved in the process.
1987
Input was also sought from the NZUAG and the Infrastructure Commission, as industry  ACT
bodies with an interest in the outcomes of the project, as well as Wellington City Council
and Digital Built Aotearoa who are the parties developing the pilot project.
There is a clear interest in the sector for an improved system to manage underground
asset data in New Zealand. The current fragmented approach leads to safety risks, project
MEETINGS
delays, increased costs, and inefficiencies across the sector. The survey conducted by
Wellington City Council quantifies significant annual impacts in terms of costs, delays, and
AND
safety incidents. While there is widespread support for the concept of NZUAR among
stakeholders, there are varying levels of readiness and enthusiasm. Some organisations
see clear benefits, while others are more hesitant due to concerns about data sharing,
resource requirements, and disruption to existing processes. The project needs to
balance public good outcomes with existing commercial interests in the sector. Careful
positioning of NZUAR as complementary to, rather than competitive wi
INFORMATION  th, existing
systems wil  be important for gaining industry support. The Wel ington pilot provides a
valuable starting point, but there is a need for a clear roadmap towards national
implementation. This should address concerns about potential fragmentation of
OFFICIAL
approaches across regions.
The governance and long-term management of NZUAR is a necessary consideration.
While Wel ington City Council has led the pilot, there are questions about the most
appropriate entity to oversee a national rollout. The independent structure of the Digital
Built Aotearoa Foundation may offer advantages, but requires further development of
resources and industry connections. The pr
GOVERNMENT  oject has
been positioned as a public good undertaking that sits at
the junction of multiple interests, including regulators
and governance bodies, as
LOCAL  set owners and operators, and
sector participants such as designers and contractors.
THE
Regulatory and policy support will likely be necessary to
drive widespread adoption. The NZUAG Code of Practice
provides a potential lever, but may require strengthening
UNDER
or clarification to encourage participation in NZUAR.
The success of NZUAR could have far-reaching benefits beyond immediate operational
improvements, to support better infrastructure planning, improved resilience and more
efficient use of resources at a national level. However, realising these broader benefits
RELEASED
will require sustained commitment and collaboration across the sector.

BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
26

9.  Recommended actions
The fol owing set of recommended actions has been developed to identify potential
responses to the challenges and influences identified through the maturity assessment
research, and includes activities that may already be underway. The list of
recommendations was initially developed as part of the pilot implementation led by WCC,
but a single authority does not have the scope or access to implement these on a national
1987
scale. In order to achieve a roll-out of the NZUAR initiative across New Zealand, wider
involvement and coherent action from regulators, operators and other sector
ACT
participants is needed. This may require a re-evaluation of progress to date so that
actions are refocused on national implementation.
The recommended actions have been grouped into five themes, as follows: MEETINGS
9.1.  Stakeholder engagement and change management AND
1.  Action: Develop a comprehensive change management strategy to address the cultural
shifts required for adopting the new system.
Need addressed: NZUAR involves multiple stakeholders, each with different
organisational cultures, processes, and priorities. The maturity assessment research
found varying levels of openness to change and support for the NZUAR project, with
INFORMATION
issues such as technical readiness, lack of trust in the new system, concern around
disruption to existing processes, and resource concerns contributing to resistance.
2.  Action: Engage with regulators and industry bodies (NZUAG, Infrastructure Commission,
OFFICIAL
Commerce Commission), to create wider recognition of current vs future practice, and
ensure NZUAR is part of/aligned with industry best practices and reporting standards.
Need addressed: Utility organisations operate within a complex regulatory environment,
so if NZUAR is demonstrated to have support of, and alignment with, industry bodies, this
will increase buy-in to the process.
GOVERNMENT
3.  Action: Engage with project managers and delivery teams within the asset owners’
organisations to identify chal enges and needs from their perspective, and involve them
in the development of pro
LOCAL  cesses and service agreements.
Need addressed: Internal project delivery teams hold responsibility for closing out
projects, which inc
THE  ludes the receipt of as-built information and/or input of asset data into
the asset owners’ GIS. The maturity assessment research identified that these roles are
often not aware of or engaged with the data management needs of the organisation and
UNDER
may not be managing the quality or timeliness of the data appropriately. Their
perspective was not included in the research so specific needs they may face have not
been explored. By bringing them into the development process for NZUAR, the project
would gain insights into how the asset owner-contractor relationship can be improved
and
RELEASED   their roles supported, thereby improving the asset data collected.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
27

link to page 13
4.  Action: Develop contractor-focused engagement and training processes to establish and
share best practices in data col ection, coordination, record keeping, compliance with
standards, and updating asset data.
Need addressed: Section 4 identifies several areas where contractors face challenges in
their data col ection and reporting responsibilities. Targeted training programs with and
for contractors are needed to ensure they are engaged in the development programme
and to provide clear guidelines for coordination between contractors, project managers,
1987
and asset data teams.
ACT
5.  Action: Consider expanding publicity and involvement around the development of NZUAR
to include services engineers and contractors across the construction industry.
Need addressed: Although NZUAR is targeted specifically at underground assets within
the transport corridor, the location of core assets is not limited to these areas. Historical
MEETINGS
changes or reuse of existing ducts may mean that public assets that were once within
road corridors now cross private land, and may be encountered in excavatio
AND n for new
buildings. Building construction projects also need to connect to underground services,
and connection points may provide additional data to improve accuracy of locations.
9.2.  Data standards and quality
6.  Action: Establish a clear set of open data standards, which include data
INFORMATION   formats, attribute
requirements, accuracy thresholds, and quality assurance processes. If this is intended to
evolve as the project develops, communicate the anticipated changes and how they wil
be staged.
OFFICIAL
Need addressed: Each asset owner has their own data standards and structures, some of
which may be easily aligned with the NZUAR project needs and others that wil  require
transformation. The contributing organisations should be provided with the standards to
be used in the project so that they can understand where their systems are in direct
alignment or how their data may need to be transformed. This is particularly important
for organisations who retain a significant v
GOVERNMENT olume of their data in map-based formats
rather than GIS.
7.  Action: Set up a process t
LOCAL o carry out regular data quality audits and provide feedback to
utility providers and contractors on areas for improvement. Benchmarking against other
organisations’ pe
THE rformance could be included in this.
Need addressed: Asset owners currently have data of widely varying quality in their
systems, and have no recognition of how they compare across the sector. Maintaining
and improvi
UNDER ng data quality requires regular monitoring and feedback, which could be
provided through data quality audits to identify issues and provide benchmarks for
improvement.
8.  Action: Support the development of automated data validation and quality checking
RELEASED
systems for contractor-submitted information.
Need addressed: Contractors often struggle with data quality and consistency in their
reports due to time constraints, varying standards across asset owners, and potential
human error. Automated checking processes offer the potential of immediate feedback
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
28

link to page 30 link to page 31
to verify data completeness, format compliance and logical consistency, in real-time as
contractors submit information. By flagging errors or inconsistencies immediately,
automated checks allow for on-site corrections, improving overall data quality and
reducing the need for time-consuming back-and-forth communications.
9.  Action: Develop a standardised, user-friendly tool or system (i.e., mobile app or web-
based interface) for contractors to use in the field, to report observations of
1987
discrepancies between recorded asset data and field conditions.
Need addressed: As noted in Action 8, contractors face significant difficulties in reporting ACT
discrepancies due to unclear processes, uncertainty about what constitutes a reportable
discrepancy, and lack of resources. A standardised tool that can be used on the job site
would streamline the reporting process and encourage more frequent and accurate
updates.
MEETINGS
9.3.  Governance and regulatory framework
AND
10.  Action: Leverage existing regulations, such as the NZUAG Code of Practice and LINZ Utility
Location Standard, to establish and enforce data sharing and quality requirements.
Need addressed: While some of the asset owners and contractors are enthusiastic about
the opportunity to participate in NZUAR, others are less supportive and will require some
form of enforcement to ensure their participation. Several mechanisms
INFORMATION   exist in current
regulations that may be used for this purpose, in particular the NZUAG Code of Practice,
but they are likely to require legal interpretation to ensure appropriate use. The LINZ
Utility Location Standard is a locally developed, non-mandatory framework available to
the sector; only one of the utility organisations involve
OFFICIAL  d in the maturity assessment
research was aware of it and none had adopted it.
11.  Action: Explore sector support and mechanisms for making the use of NZUAR mandatory
for all underground work.
Need addressed: As per Action 10, different asset owners have widely varying levels of
GOVERNMENT
support or commitment with the NZUAR project. By making it mandatory for all relevant
parties to contribute data, the same requirements are levelled at all asset owners and
there is less scope for une
LOCAL  qual engagement. Although the NZUAG Code of Practice
requires data to be made available, it does not specify the format, so does not constitute
a mandate for NZ
THE  UAR.
12.  Action: Establish clear data governance roles and responsibilities within the NZUAR
programme, including data owners, data stewards, and data quality managers.
UNDER
Need addressed: Effective data governance is essential for maintaining the integrity and
value of NZUAR over time. Some of the stakeholders are confused about how a federated
data model will function in terms of data ownership and management. Clearly defined
roles and responsibilities help ensure accountability and ongoing management of the
dat
RELEASED  a, and give organisations clarity about the role of NZUAR within their operations.
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
29

9.4.  Data security and sharing
13.  Action: Develop data sharing agreements that provide protections for commercially
sensitive and critical asset information.
Need addressed: Organisations have concerns about sharing data that may be
commercially sensitive or reveal vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure. Robust data
sharing agreements are needed to alleviate these concerns.
1987
14.  Action: Implement security measures to protect the system and data from cyber threats
and unauthorised access, and develop clear data protection policies and procedures.
ACT
Consider adopting industry-standard security certifications or accreditations such as ISO
27001 to build trust and support organisations that already have this in place.
Need addressed: The NZUAR system should protect an organisation’s data at least as well
as the organisation does so. At least one of the organisations interviewed in the maturity
MEETINGS
assessment research identified that they have ISO 27001 accreditation, so the
AND
implications of their contribution to NZUAR should be considered in this context.
15.  Action: Develop APIs or data exchange mechanisms to enable seamless data flow
between systems, and ensure that the NZUAR system can accommodate data from a
variety of sources and formats.
Need addressed: It is likely that data from asset owners will require some form of
transformation to meet the requirements of the NZUAR system. The m
INFORMATION  echanisms used to
effect these transformations need to be transparent to the organisations involved so that
they can trust that their data will be represented appropriately.
16.  Action: Establish a formal process and clear expectatio
OFFICIAL  n for capturing and incorporating
observations and feedback from field staff and contractors on data accuracy.
Need addressed: Utility organisations currently have limited mechanisms for field staff
and contractors to report observations made during project works, whether that be to
report inaccuracies (e.g. incorrect location data, unrecorded assets) or to confirm the
accuracy of records. This makes it very difficult for organisations to meet the
GOVERNMENT
requirements of the NZUAG Code of Practice, and results in missed opportunities to
improve both data quality and data confidence.
17.  Action: Develop a service
LOCAL  commitment that defines the expected level of service for
NZUAR.
THE
Need addressed: Potential users of the system are unsure about the implications of
working within the NZUAR. A clear service agreement will help to clarify factors regarding
the technical operation of the system such as commitments for continuity of the service,
UNDER
data ownership, backups and updates.
9.5.  Wider implementation strategy
18.  Action: Provide a roadmap for how NZUAR will evolve from the Wellington-based pilot
RELEASED
into a national system in the future.
Need addressed: Organisations with a national network are wary of regional solutions, so
may be reluctant to invest time and resources into supporting NZUAR while it is limited to
a Wellington-specific pilot. They expressed concerns that it may require them to
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
30

duplicate their data management efforts, given that they wil  have to use different
processes in other regions.
19.  Action: Provide clear communication on how NZUAR aligns with and complements
beforeUdig, Reveal and other commercial services.
Need addressed: Some interviewees in the maturity assessment research expressed a
strong allegiance to existing systems such as beforeUdig, and concern that the NZUAR
1987
project may duplicate or undermine them. Organisations may also worry that NZUAR
could confuse users or divert them away from the “tried and trusted” beforeUdig
ACT
process. Similarly, those viewing the technology solutions of Reveal and others may have
raised expectations that NZUAR is unable to meet.
20.  Action: Include consideration of te ao Māori and mātauranga, including consultation  with
MEETINGS
iwi and hapū, as part of the project's development and implementation plans.
Need addressed: As the area covered and datasets included in NZUAR expands
AND  , the
importance of Māori perspectives on data sovereignty, cultural significance of
underground resources, and traditional knowledge also increases. Including consideration
of te ao Māori also ensures the NZUAR project aligns with the national infrastructure
strategy.

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
31

Appendix A
The Gemini Principles
1987
ACT
MEETINGS
AND
INFORMATION

The Gemini Principles originated in 2018 as part of the
OFFICIAL UK's Digital Built Britain program,
developed by the Centre for Digital Built Britain to guide the creation and use of digital
twins in the built environment (Bolton et al., 2018). The principles ensure that digital
twins and associated information management frameworks are developed and used in
ways that are ethical and beneficial to society. By emphasising federation and openness,
they also encourage the creation of systems that can work together and share data.
GOVERNMENT
While initially UK-focused, organisations international y now use these principles to align
digital twin and information management strategies with broader objectives to meet the
needs of society. LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
32

References
Beca Ltd and Polis Consulting Group. (2021). Preparing for technological change in the
infrastructure sector. New Zealand Infrastructure Commission.
https://tewaihanga.govt.nz/our-work/research-insights/preparing-for-
technological-change-in-the-infrastructure-sector
1987
Bolton, A., Enzer, M., Schooling J, et al. (2018). The Gemini Principles: Guiding values for
the national digital twin and information management framework. Centre for ACT
Digital Built Britain and Digital Framework Task Group.
https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/DFTG/GeminiPrinciples
Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). (2022). Utility Location Standard. LINZ OP S 01287.
https://www.linz.govt.nz/guidance/survey/rules-standards-and-guidelines/utility-
MEETINGS
location-standard
AND
New Zealand Infrastructure Commission. (2022). Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa 2022–
2052 New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy. https://tewaihanga.govt.nz/the-
strategy
New Zealand Infrastructure Commission. (2024) Paying it Forward: Understanding our
longterm infrastructure needs. https://tewaihanga.govt.nz/our-work/research-
insights/paying-it-forward-understanding-our-long-term-infrast
INFORMATION ructure-needs
New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG). (20 19) National Code of Practice for
utility operators’ access to transport corridors (updated version 2).
https://nzuag.org.nz/national-code/
OFFICIAL
Wellington City Council (2024) UAR stakeholder survey 2024. [Powerpoint presentation].
Wel ington City Council.
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
BUILDING INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP
bipnz.org.nz | [email address]
33

Document Outline