A Simple Map for a Busy Industry: The Signposting, the Rails, and the Trains

Project 28 launched in September with something the property industry rarely achieves: genuine consensus. A clear target – 28 days from sale agreed to exchange – and broad agreement that faster, more certain transactions are worth working towards. It's hard to argue against that, which is precisely why it's valuable. For once, everyone's pointing in the same direction.

But consensus on the destination doesn't automatically create clarity about the route.

Right now, there's a proliferation of activity. Trust framework sandboxes. Local authority data projects. Smart data prototypes. Digital ID pilots. Government legislation. Industry coalitions. All of it moving, all of it generating headlines, all of it framed as progress towards better transactions.

Which it is. But without a clear map of how it all fits together, it's very hard – even for interested, informed observers – to understand how these pieces connect.

I don't claim deep insider knowledge of every initiative. But from the outside looking in – and talking to people across the sector – it's clear the story needs a clearer frame.

The problem is interpretation

The issue isn't that the work is wrong or wasted. The problem is that the narrative is fragmenting.

Someone reads about a trust framework initiative and assumes that's the solution to the data problem. Someone working on one project sees another launch and wonders: "Hang on, are they trying to do what we're doing?" An exec trying to make sense of it all looks at the sheer volume of announcements and thinks either "we've solved it" or "I'll wait and see which one wins" – neither of which is true.

The people running these initiatives and programmes generally understand where they fit. Most are working towards the same outcomes Project 28 articulated – faster transactions, better certainty, improved consumer experience – whether or not they've formally signed up to the charter. These are just sensible goals that most of the industry shares.

But the wider narrative – the way it's being written about, talked about, interpreted across the industry – doesn't reflect that underlying coherence.

And that matters, because confusion creates waste. Duplicated effort. Hesitation. People waiting to see which initiative "wins" when there's nothing to win. Energy spent on territorial concerns when there's no actual territory being fought over.

What's needed isn't less activity. It's a clearer map.

The map is simple

Here's how it actually fits together.

It's useful to think of these initiatives and programmes as workstreams – not in a reductive sense, but as a way to distinguish between the base rails (OPDA) and the signposting (Project 28).

Project 28 is the signposting. It tells us where we're heading: faster transactions, less uncertainty, better outcomes for everyone involved. It's deliberately broad, deliberately uncontroversial, and that's exactly what makes it useful. It articulates a shared understanding and points everyone in the same direction.

OPDA standards are the rails. They're the essential infrastructure – the common foundation that makes interoperability possible. Data flowing between systems. Parties able to talk to each other. Progress visible across the chain. Without shared standards, none of the rest works. You can't run a network on incompatible infrastructure.

The workstreams run on top. The trust frameworks, the LA data projects, the digital ID pilots, the government programmes – they're all building on that infrastructure. They're not competing with OPDA. They're not alternatives to it. They're applications of it. Trains running on the track, all heading to the same destination.

That's it. That's the map.

Why this matters now

We're at a point where the industry actually has the ingredients for systemic change. The destination has been articulated. The infrastructure exists. The workstreams are active and making progress. The conditions are right.

But if we lose the thread – if the story becomes "lots of initiatives are happening" without clarity about how they relate – we waste that opportunity.

We end up with:

• Workstream leaders wondering if they're stepping on each other's toes (they're not)
• Industry observers struggling to see the coherence (it's there)
• Executives hedging their bets because they can't tell which approach to back (there's one track, multiple trains)
• Government and regulators seeing fragmentation when there's actually coordination

None of that is necessary. The map is simple. We just need to be clear about it.

How healthy innovation works

Here's the important bit: when workstreams extend or adapt the standards for specific use cases, that's not competition or fragmentation. That's how infrastructure is supposed to work.

The rails stay common – everyone uses OPDA for the foundational interoperability. But what runs on those rails can be specialised. A trust framework might need to add specific verification layers. A local authority project might need to handle particular data structures. A digital ID pilot might integrate in a particular way.

That's fine. That's healthy. That's the system working as designed.

The confusion comes when those extensions get presented – or interpreted – as if they're replacing the infrastructure rather than building on it. They're not. They're innovations on top of a common foundation, solving specific problems in specific contexts.

The track stays the same. The trains can be different. That's the point.

A rare moment

This really is a moment of unusual alignment in property. Project 28 has articulated where we're heading. OPDA provides the infrastructure to get there. The workstreams are active, funded, and making progress.

We've got the signposting, the rails, and the trains. We just need to make sure everyone can see how they fit together – because they do.

The map is simple. Let's use it.