COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BIM ELECTRONIC REVIEW IN JAPAN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES

This study compares BIM-enabled electronic permitting and model/data checking across seven foreign cases (Singapore, Norway, Korea, Australia, Estonia, New Zealand, and the UK) using a three-layer framework: institutional design, operational practice, and technical implementation. Cross-case analysis identifies four implementation archetypes, ranging from mandatory IFC-based submissions with rule-based automated compliance checking to early-stage pilot programs. Based on the typology, we identify foundational conditions for institutional design: traceable submission management, automated data-quality validation at submission, and a clearly bounded scope of automation with defined accountability.