Proposed KPI framework for assessing DBP maturity
| Level | ID | KPI name | Description | Measurement unit | Reference/Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative Level | L1A | Archiving Provision for Digital Documents | Whether national/regional regulations allow/mandate long-term digital archiving of BP documents (e.g. PDFs, scanned drawings) | Binary (Yes/No) | TalEST; (Rakennusteollisuus RT, 2026) |
| L1B | Archiving Provision for BIM Models (IFC or others) | Whether model-based submissions (e.g. IFC, proprietary formats) are legally recognised and archivable in digital archives | Scale (0–4); 0: Not recognised; 1: Planned; 2: Discussed; 3: IFC only; 4: Open + proprietary formats | TalEST; (Lavikka and Kallinen, 2024) | |
| L2 | Digital Submission Enablement in Law | Whether digital submissions are accepted as valid (vs. paper) | Scale (0–4); 0 Not started; 1 Planned; 2 Initiated; 3 Partially implemented; 4 fully implemented | Ullah et al. (2022) | |
| L3A | Mandatory BIM Submission Requirement | Whether BIM is required for submission (and for which project types) | Binary/Scale | CORENET X Initiative Singapore (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2023) | |
| L3B | Voluntary BIM Submission Uptake | Proportion of voluntarily submitted BIM-based permits | Scale | City of Vienna (2020) | |
| L4 | Inclusion of BIM in official Regulations | Quality of national regulations/guidelines mentioning BIM in permitting | Scale Unit 0: not; 1: initial documents; 2: very clear guidelines | (buildingSMART Finland, 2012; buildingSMART International, 2020a, b, c) | |
| L5 | Measurability of Building Codes | Extent to which codes contain clearly defined, checkable rules | % | Ullah et al. (2022), TalEST | |
| L6 | Machine-Readable Code Availability | Percentage of building codes published in digital formats (XML, JSON, etc.) | % | Fauth et al. (2024a, b, c, d), EU Construction Strategy | |
| L7 | Regulatory Flexibility Score | Extent to which legal system accommodates pilots, open standards | Scale 0–4 | buildingSMART International (2025) | |
| L8 | Legal Clarity on Model Ownership | Existence of ownership/responsibility provisions for BIM models | Scale/optional/low priority | Ardani et al. (2021) | |
| L9 | Legal Validity of Automated Compliance Checks | Whether automated rule-check results are recognised in legal decision-making | Binary/Scale | TalEST | |
| L10 | Existence of Regulatory Data Standards | Existence of national/regional regulation mandating data standards for BP, enabling interoperability and automated code checking | Scale 0–4 | OntCAN | |
| Organisational Level | O1 | Implementation of Institutional BIM Guidelines | Extent to which BP institutions apply structured BIM modelling or documentation requirements | % of authorities with internal BIM guidelines | Survey data, (EU BIM TASKGROUP, 2017); Municipal BIM Guidelines (Finland) (buildingSMART Finland, 2012) |
| O2 | Implementation of Staff Training in BIM | Percentage of BP personnel trained in BIM methodologies, workflows, and relevant tools | % of BP staff training (basic/advanced) | Rava2/Rava 3 Pro project (KIRAHub, 2023a, b; Ullah et al., 2022; SmartMarket Report, 2012; Crisan et al., 2024) | |
| O3 | Platform Availability for BIM Submission | Existence of platforms for receiving digital/BIM files | Binary | buildingSMART International; Lupapiste case Solibri (2024) | |
| O4 | Participation in DBP R&D Initiatives | Level of organisational engagement in R&D or pilot projects for DBP development | Scale (0–3): 0: not important; 1: considering; 2: important but not participating; 3: important and participating | KIRA-digi (n.d.), KIRAHub (2023a, b), Crisan et al. (2024) | |
| O5 | Performance-Based Approval through Modelling | Extent to which BP decisions rely on performance-based evaluation using modelling and simulations, rather than fixed prescriptive requirements | Scale (0–3): 0: not important, 1: considering; 2: important but not participating, 3: important and participating | OntCAN | |
| Procedural Level | P1 | Average Processing Time | Time between submission and approval | Days | Fauth et al. (2024a, b, c, d), Pärn et al. (2023) |
| P2 | Error Reduction Rate | Percentage reduction in errors in BIM-based vs. paper-based submissions | % | Ahmad et al. (2018) | |
| P3 | Application Revision Cycles | Average number of iterations before approval | Count | Survey responses | |
| P4 | File Format Consistency | Percentage of files in standard open BIM formats (e.g. IFC) | % | ISO (2018); Järvenpää case, online BP systems | |
| P5 | IFC-Based Submission Rate | Proportion of submitted BP applications that include an IFC model | % | Lavikka and Kallinen (2024) | |
| P6 | Municipal Digital Workflow Adoption | Percentage of BP bodies using online platforms for submission, review, and communication | % | (ACCORD, 2024) | |
| P7 | Level of Automation in Regulatory Checks | Degree to which code compliance and rule verification are automated in the BP review process | Checks completed/total checks (est.) | Solibri Model Checker usage (Finland) | |
| P8 | User Satisfaction Score | Proportion of users expressing satisfaction with DBP service (e.g. thumbs up/down) | % | TalEST | |
| Technological Level | T1 | Existence of E-BP Platform | Whether an electronic BP platform is operational | Binary | EU BIM TASKGROUP (2017) |
| T2 | BIM Integration Level in Platform | Degree of integration of BIM models into the permitting platform | Scale (0–5) | Pärn et al. (2023), Ullah et al. (2022) | |
| T3A | Data Availability: 3D Environment | Extent to which 3D city models (e.g. CityGML, mesh) are used in permitting | % of municipalities with 3D models | City-level initiatives and (Puttonen, 2021) | |
| T3B | Data Availability: 3D Zoning Plan | Availability of zoning/master plans in digital 3D or machine-readable format | Binary or Pilot/Partial/Full | TalEST | |
| T4 | Automated Rule-Checking Availability | Availability of automated code compliance tools | Binary | Ismail et al. (2023), Al Nama and Alalawi (2023), Lee (2024), Building and Construction Authority (BCA, 2025) | |
| T5 | Compliance with Open Formats and Interoperability | Support for open data formats in BP workflows (e.g. IFC, CityGML, XML) | Binary | ISO (2018), KuntaGML, (Kolbe, 2009) | |
| T6 | User-Friendliness of Digital Systems | Perceived ease of use of digital systems by applicants and authorities | Scale (0–5) | TalEST | |
| T7 | Use of AI in Permitting Tools | Use of AI-driven tools to support permitting processes | Binary/Scaled | TalEST | |
| T8 | Availability of Municipal/Provincial Digital Twin | Availability and active use of municipal digital twin (DT) integrating GIS, and regulatory data to support BP and planning decisions | Scale (0–4) 0: No DT available 1: Pilots/partial prototypes in testing 2: DT exists but limited in scope (e.g. only zoning or environment) 3: Comprehensive DT for planning and BP (covering BIM + GIS + regulatory layers); 4: Fully operational DT | OntCAN |
| Level | ID | KPI name | Description | Measurement unit | Reference/Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative Level | Archiving Provision for Digital Documents | Whether national/regional regulations allow/mandate long-term digital archiving of BP documents (e.g. PDFs, scanned drawings) | Binary (Yes/No) | TalEST; ( | |
| L1B | Archiving Provision for BIM Models (IFC or others) | Whether model-based submissions (e.g. IFC, proprietary formats) are legally recognised and archivable in digital archives | Scale (0–4); 0: Not recognised; 1: Planned; 2: Discussed; 3: IFC only; 4: Open + proprietary formats | TalEST; ( | |
| L2 | Digital Submission Enablement in Law | Whether digital submissions are accepted as valid (vs. paper) | Scale (0–4); 0 Not started; 1 Planned; 2 Initiated; 3 Partially implemented; 4 fully implemented | ||
| L3A | Mandatory BIM Submission Requirement | Whether BIM is required for submission (and for which project types) | Binary/Scale | CORENET X Initiative Singapore ( | |
| L3B | Voluntary BIM Submission Uptake | Proportion of voluntarily submitted BIM-based permits | Scale | ||
| L4 | Inclusion of BIM in official Regulations | Quality of national regulations/guidelines mentioning BIM in permitting | Scale Unit | ( | |
| L5 | Measurability of Building Codes | Extent to which codes contain clearly defined, checkable rules | % | ||
| L6 | Machine-Readable Code Availability | Percentage of building codes published in digital formats (XML, JSON, etc.) | % | ||
| L7 | Regulatory Flexibility Score | Extent to which legal system accommodates pilots, open standards | Scale 0–4 | ||
| L8 | Legal Clarity on Model Ownership | Existence of ownership/responsibility provisions for BIM models | Scale/optional/low priority | ||
| L9 | Legal Validity of Automated Compliance Checks | Whether automated rule-check results are recognised in legal decision-making | Binary/Scale | TalEST | |
| L10 | Existence of Regulatory Data Standards | Existence of national/regional regulation mandating data standards for BP, enabling interoperability and automated code checking | Scale 0–4 | OntCAN | |
| Organisational Level | O1 | Implementation of Institutional BIM Guidelines | Extent to which BP institutions apply structured BIM modelling or documentation requirements | % of authorities with internal BIM guidelines | Survey data, ( |
| O2 | Implementation of Staff Training in BIM | Percentage of BP personnel trained in BIM methodologies, workflows, and relevant tools | % of BP staff training (basic/advanced) | Rava2/Rava 3 Pro project ( | |
| O3 | Platform Availability for BIM Submission | Existence of platforms for receiving digital/BIM files | Binary | buildingSMART International; Lupapiste case | |
| O4 | Participation in DBP R&D Initiatives | Level of organisational engagement in R&D or pilot projects for DBP development | Scale (0–3): 0: not important; 1: considering; 2: important but not participating; 3: important and participating | ||
| O5 | Performance-Based Approval through Modelling | Extent to which BP decisions rely on performance-based evaluation using modelling and simulations, rather than fixed prescriptive requirements | Scale (0–3): 0: not important, 1: considering; 2: important but not participating, 3: important and participating | OntCAN | |
| Procedural Level | P1 | Average Processing Time | Time between submission and approval | Days | |
| P2 | Error Reduction Rate | Percentage reduction in errors in BIM-based vs. paper-based submissions | % | ||
| P3 | Application Revision Cycles | Average number of iterations before approval | Count | Survey responses | |
| P4 | File Format Consistency | Percentage of files in standard open BIM formats (e.g. IFC) | % | ||
| P5 | IFC-Based Submission Rate | Proportion of submitted BP applications that include an IFC model | % | ||
| P6 | Municipal Digital Workflow Adoption | Percentage of BP bodies using online platforms for submission, review, and communication | % | ( | |
| P7 | Level of Automation in Regulatory Checks | Degree to which code compliance and rule verification are automated in the BP review process | Checks completed/total checks (est.) | Solibri Model Checker usage (Finland) | |
| P8 | User Satisfaction Score | Proportion of users expressing satisfaction with DBP service (e.g. thumbs up/down) | % | TalEST | |
| Technological Level | T1 | Existence of E-BP Platform | Whether an electronic BP platform is operational | Binary | |
| T2 | BIM Integration Level in Platform | Degree of integration of BIM models into the permitting platform | Scale (0–5) | ||
| T3A | Data Availability: 3D Environment | Extent to which 3D city models (e.g. CityGML, mesh) are used in permitting | % of municipalities with 3D models | City-level initiatives and ( | |
| T3B | Data Availability: 3D Zoning Plan | Availability of zoning/master plans in digital 3D or machine-readable format | Binary or Pilot/Partial/Full | TalEST | |
| T4 | Automated Rule-Checking Availability | Availability of automated code compliance tools | Binary | ||
| T5 | Compliance with Open Formats and Interoperability | Support for open data formats in BP workflows (e.g. IFC, CityGML, XML) | Binary | ||
| T6 | User-Friendliness of Digital Systems | Perceived ease of use of digital systems by applicants and authorities | Scale (0–5) | TalEST | |
| T7 | Use of AI in Permitting Tools | Use of AI-driven tools to support permitting processes | Binary/Scaled | TalEST | |
| T8 | Availability of Municipal/Provincial Digital Twin | Availability and active use of municipal digital twin (DT) integrating GIS, and regulatory data to support BP and planning decisions | Scale (0–4) | OntCAN |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.