Consolidated framework of validated KPIs per subsystem
| Level | ID | KPI name | Tallinn, EST | Helsinki, FIN | Vantaa, FIN | Vienna, AUT | Gaia, PRT | Dubai, UAE | Ontario, CAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative Level | L1A | Archiving Provision for Digital Documents | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| L1B | Archiving Provision for BIM Models (IFC/others) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |
| L2 | Digital Submission Enablement in Law | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| L3A | Mandatory BIM Submission Requirement | No | Yes, 2–3 | 3 | No | No, 1 | 4 | 0 | |
| L3B | Voluntary BIM Submission Uptake | Yes | Yes, 2–3 | Yes, 3 | Yes, 2 | Yes, 4 | Yes, 4 | 1 | |
| L4 | Inclusion of BIM in Official Regulations | 1 | Yes, 1 | Yes, 1 | Yes, 2 | Yes, 1 | Yes, 2 | No | |
| L5 | Measurability of Building Codes | 35% | ∼50% | 30% | 58% | 6% | 70% | 100% | |
| L6 | Machine-Readable Code Availability | 35% | – | ∼15% | 80% | 0% | 70% | 100% | |
| L7 | Regulatory Flexibility Score | 3 | 3–4 | 0 | 1–3 | 1 | 2–3 | 1 | |
| L8 | Legal Clarity on Model Ownership | Low priority | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| L9 | Legal Validity of Automated Compliance Checks | No, 0 | Yes, 3 | No | No | No, 0 | No, 0 | No, 0 | |
| L10 | Existence of Regulatory Data Standards | 1 | NA | NA | 0–3 | 0 | NA | 0–1 | |
| Organisational Level | O1 | Implementation of Institutional BIM Guidelines | 10% | 50% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| O2 | Implementation of Staff Training in BIM | >80, basic | 100%, basic | 10% basic | <10% advanced | ∼5–10% | 60% | 20% | |
| O3 | Platform Availability for BIM Submission | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | |
| O4 | Participation in DBP R&D Initiatives | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2–3 | |
| O5 | Performance-Based Approval through Modelling | 2 | NA | NA | 1 | 2 | NA | 2–3 | |
| Procedural Level | P1 | Average Processing Time | 45 days | ∼88 days | ∼31 days | ∼90 days | ∼30–90 days | 3 days | NA |
| P2 | Error Reduction Rate | 30% | NA | ∼0% | ∼20–40% | ∼40–50% | ∼50–70% | 80% | |
| P3 | Application Revision Cycles | 3–4 | NA | ∼3 | 1–2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| P4 | File Format Consistency | 100% | ∼5–10% | – | 0% | 1% | 100% | 0 | |
| P5 | IFC-Based Submission Rate | 1% | ∼5–10% | 0 | 0% | 1% | ∼10% | 0 | |
| P6 | Municipal Digital Workflow Adoption | 100% | 100% | 100% | 4% | 100% | 100% | >50% | |
| P7 | Level of Automation in Regulatory Checks | 9.7% | ∼5–10% | 0 | NA | 0 | 70% | 1% | |
| P8 | User Satisfaction Score | planned | 100% | 72% | 80% | 80–85% | 95% | 90% | |
| Technological Level | T1 | Existence of E-BP Platform | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| T2 | BIM Integration Level in Platform | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | |
| T3A | Data Availability: 3D Environment | 100% | ∼50% | NA | 100% | Yes, 10% | 20–30% | 0 | |
| T3B | Data Availability: 3D Zoning Plan | Pilot | Pilot | Partial | Pilot | Pilot | Pilot | Pilot | |
| T4 | Automated Rule-Checking Availability | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | |
| T5 | Compliance with Open Formats and Interoperability | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | |
| T6 | User-Friendliness of Digital Systems | 4 | ∼4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |
| T7 | Use of AI in Permitting Tools | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | |
| T8 | Availability of Municipal/Provincial Digital Twin | 3 | NA | NA | 3–4 | 1 | NA | NA |
| Level | ID | KPI name | Tallinn, EST | Helsinki, FIN | Vantaa, FIN | Vienna, AUT | Gaia, PRT | Dubai, UAE | Ontario, CAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative Level | L1A | Archiving Provision for Digital Documents | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| L1B | Archiving Provision for BIM Models (IFC/others) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |
| L2 | Digital Submission Enablement in Law | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| L3A | Mandatory BIM Submission Requirement | No | Yes, 2–3 | 3 | No | No, 1 | 4 | 0 | |
| L3B | Voluntary BIM Submission Uptake | Yes | Yes, 2–3 | Yes, 3 | Yes, 2 | Yes, 4 | Yes, 4 | 1 | |
| L4 | Inclusion of BIM in Official Regulations | 1 | Yes, 1 | Yes, 1 | Yes, 2 | Yes, 1 | Yes, 2 | No | |
| L5 | Measurability of Building Codes | 35% | ∼50% | 30% | 58% | 6% | 70% | 100% | |
| L6 | Machine-Readable Code Availability | 35% | – | ∼15% | 80% | 0% | 70% | 100% | |
| L7 | Regulatory Flexibility Score | 3 | 3–4 | 0 | 1–3 | 1 | 2–3 | 1 | |
| L8 | Legal Clarity on Model Ownership | Low priority | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| L9 | Legal Validity of Automated Compliance Checks | No, 0 | Yes, 3 | No | No | No, 0 | No, 0 | No, 0 | |
| L10 | Existence of Regulatory Data Standards | 1 | NA | NA | 0–3 | 0 | NA | 0–1 | |
| Organisational Level | O1 | Implementation of Institutional BIM Guidelines | 10% | 50% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| O2 | Implementation of Staff Training in BIM | >80, basic | 100%, basic | 10% basic | <10% advanced | ∼5–10% | 60% | 20% | |
| O3 | Platform Availability for BIM Submission | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | |
| O4 | Participation in DBP R&D Initiatives | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2–3 | |
| O5 | Performance-Based Approval through Modelling | 2 | NA | NA | 1 | 2 | NA | 2–3 | |
| Procedural Level | P1 | Average Processing Time | 45 days | ∼88 days | ∼31 days | ∼90 days | ∼30–90 days | 3 days | NA |
| P2 | Error Reduction Rate | 30% | NA | ∼0% | ∼20–40% | ∼40–50% | ∼50–70% | 80% | |
| P3 | Application Revision Cycles | 3–4 | NA | ∼3 | 1–2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| P4 | File Format Consistency | 100% | ∼5–10% | – | 0% | 1% | 100% | 0 | |
| P5 | IFC-Based Submission Rate | 1% | ∼5–10% | 0 | 0% | 1% | ∼10% | 0 | |
| P6 | Municipal Digital Workflow Adoption | 100% | 100% | 100% | 4% | 100% | 100% | >50% | |
| P7 | Level of Automation in Regulatory Checks | 9.7% | ∼5–10% | 0 | NA | 0 | 70% | 1% | |
| P8 | User Satisfaction Score | planned | 100% | 72% | 80% | 80–85% | 95% | 90% | |
| Technological Level | T1 | Existence of E-BP Platform | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| T2 | BIM Integration Level in Platform | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | |
| T3A | Data Availability: 3D Environment | 100% | ∼50% | NA | 100% | Yes, 10% | 20–30% | 0 | |
| T3B | Data Availability: 3D Zoning Plan | Pilot | Pilot | Partial | Pilot | Pilot | Pilot | Pilot | |
| T4 | Automated Rule-Checking Availability | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | |
| T5 | Compliance with Open Formats and Interoperability | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | |
| T6 | User-Friendliness of Digital Systems | 4 | ∼4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |
| T7 | Use of AI in Permitting Tools | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | |
| T8 | Availability of Municipal/Provincial Digital Twin | 3 | NA | NA | 3–4 | 1 | NA | NA |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.