Comparative Study of
BIM
‐Enabled Electronic Review in Japan and Other Countries
Jun Okoshi, Mika Noguchi, Kazuya Shide ABSTRACT
This study compares BIM‐enabled electronic review, with a focus on BIM‐based data review, across seven jurisdictions outside Japan (Singapore, Norway, Korea, Australia, Estonia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) 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 pilot and preparatory initiatives. Based on this typology, the study identifies foundational conditions for institutional design in Japan: traceable submission management, pre‐submission quality assurance through automated data validation, and a clearly defined boundary of automation with corresponding accountability.