Framework for Automated Model-Based e-Permitting System

for Municipal Jurisdictions

Kamellia Shahi1; Brenda Y. McCabe, M.ASCE2; and Arash Shahi3

Abstract: Recent technological advances in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry, including the implementation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

building information modeling (BIM) and automated data-capturing tools, have enabled the AEC industry to commence its digital journey in
the era of big data. Over the last decade, e-permitting practices have been introduced in many municipal jurisdictions around the world, aimed
at replacing the traditional and inefficient paper-based practices. In this paper, these recent international developments are investigated, and
three distinct levels of e-permitting are defined based on their varying levels of automation and integration. A framework is then developed that
considers the impact of each level of e-permitting on the entire life cycle of the project, from submission of permitting document through
construction, operation, and maintenance of the built facility. The developed framework can be used as a road map for any municipality for
advancing from traditional paper-based permitting practices (Level 0) to a fully integrated city planning tool (Level 3), thus enabling several
smart urban management applications, including city-level planning reviews, integrated logistics planning, and smart urban asset management.
The framework as a whole was validated by a group of experts on construction permitting practices. Specific elements of its lower levels have
been implemented by municipalities around the world, which have reported significant productivity improvements. Finally, this paper inves-
tigates several barriers to implementing the higher levels of e-permitting, along with corresponding strategies for municipalities to mitigate and
overcome these challenges. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000712. Ó 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: e-Permitting; Model-based; Building information modeling (BIM); Code compliance checking; GIS integration; Smart
urban management; City planning.

Introduction Obtaining permits and approvals for building construction in

Growing populations in major cities have increased the demand for
construction of new housing supply. Focused on achieving more
sustainable built infrastructure, regulators are continually looking to
improve and extend requirements for obtaining construction per-
mits. These factors have placed tremendous pressure on munici-
palities and their limited resources to keep pace with the demands of
their local construction industry. Analysis of the permitting pro-
cesses of 162 tall residential towers in the City of Toronto, Canada,
showed that the average duration for a successful rezoning permit
increased from less than 1 year in 2006 to over 3 years in 2016 (Shahi
et al. 2017). With over 100,000 new residents moving to the Greater
Toronto Area (GTA) every year (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2017),
the growing timeline for obtaining construction and rezoning per-
mits delays the supply of much-needed new housing units (Shahi
et al. 2017). The increased demand for housing, coupled with the
lack of supply of new units, has also created significant volatilities in
the housing market (Clayton and Amborski 2017) and has contrib-
uted to a mounting affordability problem in North America’s fourth-
largest city (Statistics Canada 2015).
1
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Mineral Engineering, Univ. of Toronto,
35 St. George St., Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4 (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6701-1762. Email: kamellia.shahi@gmail.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Mineral Engineering, Univ. of Toronto,
35 St. George St., Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4.
3
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Mineral Engineering, Univ. of
Toronto, 35 St. George St., Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 6, 2018; approved on
March 12, 2019; published online on August 5, 2019. Discussion period
open until January 5, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in
Engineering, Ó ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X.
© ASCE
large cities is a complex undertaking and often involves a wide
range of regulatory agencies. These approvals range from official
plan and zoning amendments to demolition, construction, and in-
spection permits. Traditionally, these processes include heavy paper
trails, time-consuming manual review procedures, and lack of
transparency in the review and approval process.
Increased emphasis on improving productivity in the architec-
ture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry in recent years
has drawn attention toward expediting and streamlining the manual
and labor-intensive permitting processes. Jurisdictions around the
globe have adopted and implemented a range of strategies to im-
prove their review processes for construction permits. These gen-
erally include implementation of an information and document
management system that aims to reduce or replace the paper-based
permitting system with digital submission of drawings. These have
commonly been referred to as e-permitting systems (Fiatech 2008).
It has been shown that municipalities’ willingness to adopt
process innovations is positively correlated with increases in their
cost efficiency (Lampe 2017). A recent technology with strong
promise of revolutionizing the AEC industry is building infor-
mation modeling (BIM) (Eastman et al. 2008). It has been shown
that the effectiveness of BIM implementations depends on the
industry’s readiness to take advantage of BIM’s potentials (Lee
et al. 2015). In addition to providing an accurate three-dimensional
(3D) representation of the building, and providing other dimen-
sions of information, such as schedule and cost for a project, BIM
captures semantic information such as material properties and re-
lationships between elements within the model. The benefits of
BIM have been extensively studied by many researchers in the
construction domain. These studies address a wide range of issues,
from organizational change and interoperability to clash detection
analysis and quantity takeoffs and even more advanced applica-
tions using fourth- and fifth-dimension (4D and 5D) models (Azhar
04019025-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025

 2011; Chong et al. 2016; Farghaly et al. 2018; Liao and Ai Lin Teo
2018).
While the advantages of BIM are more widely exploited by
architects in the design stage, there is tremendous potential in using
BIM during the construction phase and, perhaps most important,
during facility operation and management, highlighted by the
emergence of market demands around model-based facility moni-
toring applications (Giel and Issa 2014; Khan and Hornbæk 2011;
Mayo and Issa 2016). An annual BIM implementation survey in the
United Kingdom reported a 300% increase in BIM implementation
on projects between 2011 and 2017 and a 30% increase since 2015,
which clearly shows that BIM utilization is on the rise (NBS 2017).
Interestingly, 84% of the respondents in this survey believed that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
they need to be able to automatically check the compliance of BIM
with standards, and 79% agreed that guidance provided in standards
will need to link to building models in the near future (NBS 2017),
which can pave the way for higher levels of e-permitting as defined
and explained in this paper.
This research focuses on improving the permitting process in
municipalities by taking full advantage of recent technological ad-
vances in the AEC industry, including BIM. The next section pro-
vides a detailed description of the methodology of this research,
which is followed by a global review of existing e-permitting prac-
tices and the developed framework of this research.
Research Methodology
This paper investigates the development and implementation of
e-permitting systems in municipal jurisdictions around the world
and presents a three-level framework for an advanced, automated,
and model-based e-permitting system that is aligned with recent
technological advancements in the AEC industry.
The term e-permitting has been used to refer to a wide range of
applications within the AEC industry, and therefore the methodol-
ogy of this research included a review of basic elements of e-
permitting systems and their main differentiators from traditional
permitting practices.
A thorough traditional literature review of published and im-
plemented e-permitting systems in municipal jurisdictions in the
United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia was then conducted, and
the unique characteristics, as well as common elements, of these
systems were identified.
The existing permitting systems in municipal jurisdictions
around the world were categorized (Levels 0, 1, and 2) based on
their level of automation and technological sophistication (Fig. 1).
Level 0 represents traditional paper-based permitting practices with
no automation; Level 1 represents basic e-permitting capabilities,
which often included digital submission of two-dimensional (2D)
drawings and simple workflows; and Level 2 e-permitting allows
for digital submission of digital models and can include various
levels of processing automation.
As part of the contributions of this research, the categorization in
Fig. 1 was then expanded to include the impact of each permitting
Fig. 1. Categories of existing e-permitting systems.
© ASCE 04019025-2
J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025
system on the document submissions, document review, construc-
tion, and operation of a facility. Also, an additional Level 3 e-
permitting was introduced to represent potential integrations that
can exist for each phase of the project, to fully leverage BIM in all
aspects of permitting, construction, and operation and maintenance
of the built infrastructure. Level 3 e-permitting is envisioned as a
fully integrated city planning tool, which can enable several smart
urban management applications, including city-level planning re-
views, integrated logistics planning, and smart urban asset man-
agement.
The framework detailed in this paper can be used as a road map
for advancing from traditional paper-based permitting practices to a
fully integrated city planning tool. The framework as a whole was
validated by a panel of eight experts in the area of electronic per-
mitting. This panel was coordinated by the Residential Construction
Council of Ontario (RESCON), which was mandated by the gov-
ernment of Ontario to provide a comprehensive report, “Stream-
lining the Development and Building Approvals Process in Ontar-
io.” As part of their report, the panel reviewed the framework
developed in this research, provided feedback, and finally validated
and accepted the framework to be used as a road map for munici-
palities in Ontario to advance from traditional permitting practices
to an automated and integrated e-permitting system (RESCON 2018).
In addition to the validation by experts, the e-permitting systems
classified as Levels 1 and 2 in this framework have been partially
implemented by some municipalities around the world, which have
reported significant productivity improvements. These implemen-
tations are reviewed and discussed.
Finally, based on documented and reviewed international im-
plementation of various levels of e-permitting, and through further
literature review on best practices for BIM implementation, a set of
barriers to implementation of the developed framework and a
number of best practices to deal with these barriers are presented.
Traditional Permitting versus e-Permitting Systems
In a traditional building permit office, government agencies require
applicants to submit paper copies of all drawings and specifications
for rezoning, new building, engineering, inspection, and occupancy
permits. Multiple copies are often needed so that relevant divisions,
such as fire prevention and traffic control, can review the applica-
tion simultaneously. Drawings that were revised to address previous
comments and recommendations by the numerous internal and
external reviewers may be part of that package. However, most, if
not all, drawings submitted on paper for the application submission
and review process are designed and prepared using computers and
advanced software packages. The disadvantages of the traditional
system extend beyond the environmental costs of using tremendous
amounts of paper to include storage and management of docu-
ments, difficulty in distributing documents, and manual and time-
consuming review procedures. Also, the lack of process transpar-
ency limits the process efficiencies that can be implemented for
permitting practices (Hui 2017). Finally, lack of coordination be-
tween internal and external parties who need to review the docu-
ments often results in inconsistent and contradictory review deci-
sions (Shahi et al. 2017).
An e-permitting system consists of an online platform and doc-
ument workplace that connects municipalities and other government
agencies with AEC professionals to complete building permit sub-
missions, reviews, and approval processes (Foo Sing and Zhong
2001). It provides a one-stop shop for permitting with reported
success at municipal jurisdictions around the world (World Bank
and IFC 2013).
J. Manage. Eng.
 Given their global success, e-permitting systems have been
growing in popularity in recent years. While there are many var-
iations, most existing systems are built on a centralized document
management platform, often with a built-in workflow engine in the
background. The goal is to connect all the stakeholders, including
agencies that need to approve the drawings and plans, within one
platform and manage the electronic distribution and flow of doc-
uments within the system. Once documents are digitally submitted,
they are routed to the appropriate agencies and stakeholders, al-
lowing simultaneous review when appropriate and enabling effec-
tive communication between the agencies and stakeholders. The
improved communication between AEC professionals and govern-
ing agencies and the increased transparency in the review and ap-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
proval process are important advantages that effective e-permitting
platforms can provide. Specifically, increased transparency can be
achieved through dashboards and reports to applicants regarding the
status of their application and through metadata reports to the in-
dustry and the public on performance metrics related to the review
process itself.
Review of Existing e-Permitting Systems
Successful implementations of e-permitting practices include those
in Singapore, the United States, Finland, and Canada. Singapore, a
city-state in Southeast Asia, is a pioneer in the development and
implementation of e-permitting systems. In 1995, Singapore laun-
ched the Construction and Real Estate Network (CORENET) system
with the aim of allowing building project stakeholders to readily
exchange information digitally (Foo Sing and Zhong 2001). In 2002,
CORENET was equipped with e-submission capacity to accept 2D
drawings for planning and engineering permits over the internet. By
2009, Singapore had reduced its time for processing construction
permits from 102 days to 38 days (novaCITYNETS 2017). Its suc-
cess led to continued improvements and innovations. In January
2010, CORENET started accepting architectural BIM e-submissions,
followed by structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing models
in 2011 (BCA 2011b). The processing time was further reduced to
25 days (novaCITYNETS 2017). In 2015, the use of BIM for all new
construction projects in Singapore became mandatory. These
changes in submission formats would not have been possible with-
out Singapore’s phased-in mandate for BIM e-submission starting in
July 2013. The government’s requirement for the construction in-
dustry to use BIM resulted in AEC-wide benefits by 2015 (BCA
2013). Today, Singapore is leading the way in automated code
compliance checking.
Singapore’s success can be attributed in part to its city-state
structure, in which a centralized agency oversees permitting pro-
cesses for the entire country of 5.6 million people. In contrast,
Finland has approximately the same population as Singapore but
comprises 311 municipalities (Official Statistics of Finland 2017),
some of which have fewer than 6,000 residents. Most of the mu-
nicipalities have their own process to approve permits, which un-
derstandably complicates the implementation of a national system.
Despite these complications, Finland introduced an e-permitting
system in 2013, and by 2017 it had buy-in from 60% of Finnish
municipalities (Evolta 2017a). Part of Finland’s success was the
comprehensiveness of its implementation; the system could manage
100 different permit application types and a volume of over 8,000
applications per month (Evolta 2017b).
North American municipalities have been following in the
footsteps of Singapore. The United States started to mandate BIM
for some government projects in 2008, and in 2010 it did so for
public projects over $5 million and all new construction projects
© ASCE 04019025-3
J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025
over $2.5 million (Singh 2017). In 2011, the City of New York
launched the Development Hub, a digital platform that enabled
online submission of plan review applications along with required
forms and payments. New York’s system was similar to Finland’s
approach, in which plan examiners reviewed applications in their
technologically advanced offices with large viewing screens and
smart boards. Webcams and video conferencing tools facilitated
communication between plan examiners and applicants (City of
New York 2017). As of 2018, New York’s system accepted draw-
ings only as portable document format (PDF) files, which limited the
capabilities of its system. While New York has not published any
metrics, the City of Boston started using a similar system in 2014,
and in its first year it processed 21% more applications in 18% less
time (Lawrence 2015).
In January 2016, the City of Mississauga, in Ontario, Canada,
implemented e-plans, an online e-processing platform for submis-
sion and review of building plans for building permits, zoning
certificates, site plan approvals, and preliminary development ap-
plications. While e-plans does not currently support BIM submis-
sion, it has many elements of the CORENET and Evolta systems,
including a workflow engine, simultaneous reviewing, and plan
markup capabilities. It also provides a client-facing dashboard with
status updates on applications (City of Mississauga 2017). As a
result of implementing e-plans, Mississauga reported that the time
needed for the first review of applications was reduced by 30%, and
the overall time to issue a building permit was reduced by 8%, in the
first year of implementation (Hinton 2017). Among other reported
benefits of e-plan are a drastic reduction in storage space for printed
plans, improved reviewing capacity, reduced time for each appli-
cation to transit between city staff for review, and improved quality
and efficiency in permit services (City of Mississauga 2017).
Mississauga’s lead was followed by other Canadian cities. For
example, the City of Markham implemented e-plans in 2017 for
building permits and zoning preliminary review applications (City
of Markham 2017). Vancouver, Edmonton, and Hamilton were
reportedly investigating alternatives for implementing e-permitting
systems for their communities (Avolve 2017).
Developed Framework
Based on the review of international best practices in e-permitting
capabilities, a framework with three levels of e-permitting was de-
veloped and compared with traditional permitting practices. These
levels and their differentiating elements corresponding to the de-
sign, review, construction, and operation and maintenance phases of
a project are illustrated in Fig. 2. Level 0 refers to the traditional
paper-based permitting process, with no automation and no elec-
tronic submission capabilities. Levels 1–3 indicate increasing levels
of sophistication, automation, and integration of the e-permitting
systems and can be used as a road map for advancing from tradi-
tional paper-based permitting practices to a fully integrated e-
permitting system. The transition from Level 0 to Level 3 is not
crisp, and the completion of one level is not required before an
agency can move to the next level; nor must all aspects of one level
be implemented.
Most existing e-permitting systems reviewed as part of this re-
search were categorized as Level 1, including those implemented in
New York, Boston, Mississauga, Markham, and Finland. Singa-
pore’s CORENET system has recently moved to what this research
categorizes as Level 2, since it allows for e-submissions via BIM
platforms and for limited automation in code compliance checking.
Those categorized in Level 1 are expected to eventually move into
Level 2 as the demand for BIM increases in the AEC industry and as
J. Manage. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Framework for different levels of e-permitting.

technical sophistication of those municipalities advances. Level 3 e-
permitting is introduced as a sophisticated city planning tool that
takes full advantage of the technological advancements in the AEC
industry and the integration and automation potentials that can be
incorporated within an e-permitting system. The following sections
present each level of the e-permitting framework in detail.
Level 1: Basic e-Permitting Systems
As shown in Fig. 2, Level 1 represents basic e-permitting systems.
At this level and without regard to how the drawings are produced
in the design stage, they are submitted in a 2D digital format (Level
1.A), either by email or through a web interface. The key differ-
entiator between Levels 0 and 1 is that in Level 1, paper is no longer
needed for the application submission. This facilitates immediate,
cost-effective, and systematic distribution of the documents to all
agencies that need to review them, allowing the simultaneous re-
view of drawings when appropriate.
During manual review of drawings by authorities (Level 1.B),
some systems facilitate digital markup on the electronic documents.
Allowing reviewers to embed their questions and comments in the
documents makes it easier for them to communicate their concerns
to the applicant. Alternatively, reviewers may prepare a report with
their comments. Special workstations with very large or multiple
© ASCE 04019025-4
display screens or smart boards to facilitate viewing of complex and
detailed drawings can provide reviewers with the tools to undertake
a comprehensive analysis of the design and the degree to which it
complies with the relevant codes and regulations.
Communication opportunities for stakeholders may be available
but may not be included in all Level 1 systems. For example, video
conferencing, email correspondence, or webcams could be used by
reviewers to discuss issues effectively and in a timely manner to
reconcile conflicts and other issues.
The document management platform and a workflow engine are
other unique characteristics of Level 1 e-permitting systems and
allow for manual and paper-based reports to be digitally associated
with the application, ensuring their timely retrieval when needed.
For example, while the inspection permits are typically completed
manually, reports can be integrated with the document management
system in the software platform (Level 1.C). In this manner, in-
spectors can upload their reports remotely, providing immediate
verification of their findings.
Level 1 e-permitting systems are operated by government agen-
cies, and while they accept digital drawings, no outputs are provided
to the applicant that could benefit the operation and maintenance
phase of a facility (Level 1.D). Therefore, they provide no added
functionality to the traditional paper-based system in this regard.
However, workflow algorithms could be put in place to support the
J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025

 analysis of how long each authority takes to review, comment, and
respond to the application. These statistics could be very useful in
automating the identification of bottlenecks in the system.
In Level 1 e-permitting and upon the submission of building
drawings to governing agencies, drawings are reviewed by engi-
neers, designers, and staff for compliance with regulations and
codes that are in place, including building codes. For the most part,
this process is currently manual, error prone, time-consuming, and
resource dependent. There are also concerns with the transparency
and consistency of this review process (Solihin and Eastman 2015).
Unfortunately, the manual checking of plans against various codes
and guidelines by different departments at agencies often results in
inconsistent recommendations, which are mostly due to misinter-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pretations and differing interpretations of rules and guidelines
(Fiatech 2013). Finally, there are concerns with the accuracy of
traditional review processes, given the error-prone nature of manual
checking procedures.
Level 2: Automated Model-Based e-Permitting Systems
Automated model-based (Level 2) e-permitting is built around a
BIM platform, which is developed during the design phase and
maintained throughout the life of the project. In Level 2.A, a com-
prehensive model of the facility is submitted instead of discrete 2D
drawings, which enables a wide range of applications, as explained
in this section.
An alternative approach to manual reviews of 2D drawings is
the use of technologies for automated code compliance checking
(Level 2.B). These technologies are not bound by traditional time
and resource constraints and can provide consistent, reliable, and
transparent reviews. This approach provides the user with summary
compliance reports and tools to expedite decision making by plan
examiners. This functionality has been validated in the past using
automated code compliance checking against International Building
Code (IBC) 2009 (Fiatech 2012). Fig. 3 illustrates the process and
steps that are required in any automated code-checking system.
The first step of automated code compliance checking is to
represent and formulate building codes, standards, and regulations,
which are translated from natural language into a computable form.
Advancements have been made in automation of the extraction and
transformation of rules directly from codes and regulatory docu-
ments. Different modeling techniques have been adopted by re-
Fig. 3. Automated code compliance checking (Level 2.B). (Adapted
from Eastman et al. 2009.)
© ASCE 04019025-5
J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025
searchers to generate computer-executable rules from natural lan-
guage regulations. These methods can be categorized into two main
approaches.
 Artificial intelligence (AI) methods use natural language pro-
cessing algorithms such as text analytics, content monetization,
automatic classification of content, and text mining. These AI
methods aim to enable computers to automatically derive
meaning from the text and generate logical rules for checking
purposes.
 Markup language methods, such as extensible markup language
(XML), semiautomate the translation of codes that are available
in hypertext markup language (HTML), PDF, or hard copy (Na-
wari and Alsaffar 2015).
Regardless of the method, the goal of this first step is to translate the
codes and regulations into a language that a computer-based plat-
form can use. To implement any methodology for code compliance
checking, a digital 3D representation of the building with adequate
semantic information and level of detail is needed. BIM, with suf-
ficient level of detail, easily satisfies this requirement (Solihin and
Eastman 2015). With the increased implementation of BIM in
construction projects, automated code compliance checking has
become more practical than before.
Code compliance checking needs to be performed outside of any
BIM-specific platform, and Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) have
long offered a promising means of domain-independent solutions
for BIM applications. The current IFC standards are flexible and
allow for extraction of types, attributes, and relationships between
objects that can be extracted from any BIM platform (Pauwels et al.
2011).
With the BIM data extracted in IFC format, and rules, regula-
tions, and guidelines translated into a computable language, a rea-
soning tool or a software solution can efficiently conduct virtually
all the checks that need to be performed for a given building. This
process can take place within an application attached to design
software, such as a BIM platform plug-in; using stand-alone soft-
ware for code compliance checking; or using a web-based appli-
cation (Eastman et al. 2009; Gholizadeh et al. 2018).
Government agencies and municipal jurisdictions around the
world have started to implement code compliance checking in their
systems, which have mostly focused on building code compli-
ance. Table 1 summarizes the extent of automated code compliance
checking and the jurisdictions for which they were originally de-
veloped.
In 2002, Singapore started developing and implementing a code-
checking system called FORNAX as a part of its CORENET system
(Lam 2004). FORNAX consists of a library of objects that extend
the building component information of the IFC models with addi-
tional information that is needed for code checking by the rule-
checking engine (Eastman et al. 2009). FORNAX checks proposed
building plans for compliance with fire code specifications, in-
cluding fire escape routes, material use, ceiling heights, and fire
Table 1. State of automated code compliance checking in international
jurisdictions
Energy Fire Building Initially
System code code code developed for
FORNAX — X Partial Singapore
Solibri Model Checker — Partial Partial Finland
EDModelChecker — — Partial Norway
DesignCheck — — Partial Australia
COMcheck=REScheck X — — United States
SMARTcodes — — Partial International
J. Manage. Eng.
 rating. It also checks building services components such as venti-
lation, hydraulic, and fire protection systems. The system further
allows for evaluation of digital drawings against prescription-based
development plan guidelines and regulations, such as plot ratio and
land use type.
Originally developed in Finland, Solibri Model Checker (SMC)
offers automated code-checking capabilities that can operate on IFC
exports from BIM platforms (Preidel and Borrmann 2015). SMC
checks the model against fire codes and building accessibility
codes. SMC is empowered by a rule manager, which allows the
development of customizable rules and rule sets for model check-
ing. This is not currently available in the FORNAX system.
EDModelChecker was developed in Norway and utilizes a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
commercial library of objects, similar to FORNAX but based on the
EXPRESS data modeling language, which is an ISO-certified open
standards language compatible with IFC schema (Eastman et al.
2009).
DesignCheck, developed by Australia’s Cooperative Research
Centre (CRC), is capable of checking building plans for access and
mobility in different stages, from sketch design to detailed drawings
(Ding et al. 2006). SMARTcodes is a system developed by the
International Code Council in 2006 to check building designs for
compliance with international, federal, and state codes (Lee et al.
2016).
Automated code checking has not been limited to construction-
related codes and regulations. In the United States, the DOE has
been supporting and maintaining the International Energy Conser-
vation Code (IECC) energy codes (for minimum energy efficiency
of design and construction) and the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard
90.1 (energy standard for buildings except low-rise residential
buildings). In recent years, the DOE launched the COMcheck
software application for compliance checking of new commercial or
high-rise residential buildings against the energy requirements of
IECC and ASHRAE standards, as well as some state-specific codes
(DOE 2014). The DOE also developed REScheck, which performs
partial automated compliance checking for small residential projects
against existing energy codes (Halverson et al. 2009). Interestingly,
the DOE made these platforms available through its own website,
thus encouraging users to evaluate their designs before they submit
applications.
Even though a fully automated code compliance checking plat-
form capable of analyzing a building model against all relevant
building, fire, and energy codes simultaneously has not yet been
developed, the progress of software companies and government
agencies demonstrates the industry’s inclination for such a solution.
The approach taken by the governments of Singapore and the United
States, in developing and readily providing the solutions, could be a
model for government agencies around the world to offer such
services in the future.
While the focus of this research and the developed framework
was on the e-permitting system itself, the consequences of imple-
menting higher levels of e-permitting systems on a project’s entire
life cycle, from design to construction and operation and mainte-
nance of a facility, were also considered. For example, by imple-
menting what this research classifies as Level 2 e-permitting, a
reliable and updated model of the facility with sufficient level of
detail can developed and updated during the design and review
phase of a project. This model can then be used for automated
inspection during the construction phase (Level 2.C) and as the
basis for model-based building management during operation
(Level 2.D), thereby leveraging the efforts in development of BIM
to benefit the facility’s entire life cycle, from design to operation
and maintenance.
© ASCE 04019025-6
J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025
Automated inspection of construction sites is an optional com-
ponent of the proposed framework (Level 2.C). In the context of this
framework, automated inspection is the use of automatic and
semiautomatic data-capturing tools, such as photogrammetry and
3D laser scanners (Golparvar-Fard et al. 2011), using unmanned
aerial vehicles (drones) (Hamledari et al. 2017; Irizarry and Costa
2016). Such technologies provide automatic schedule updates and
inspection reports directly in the BIM system (Hamledari et al.
2017).
By transferring BIM to the operation and maintenance phase of a
facility (Level 2.D), all data captured during the design, review, and
construction phases can be transferred to facility managers. This
transferred knowledge may range from semantic information at-
tached to equipment (such as manufacturer and parts information) to
inspection reports submitted during construction, enabling more
informed decision making during the operation and maintenance
phase.
Level 3: Fully Integrated e-Permitting Systems
The increase in BIM implementation in the construction industry
and the advantages of automated data-driven analysis have already
motivated several municipalities around the world to take advantage
of automated code compliance checking (Level 2.B). However,
these technologies have also paved the way for new capabilities that
were not previously feasible. A range of these new capabilities
stems from the integration of BIM and GIS, which captures geodetic
coordinates, spatial information, and relationships between objects
(Liu et al. 2017). In this research, fully integrated e-permitting
systems, capable of integrating BIM with GIS, are classified as
Level 3 e-permitting systems. Level 3 e-permitting is presented as
the future of permitting systems and is compatible with the require-
ments of intelligent building systems and smart cities in providing a
meaningful digital connection between a facility and its urban
context.
Used in the GIS platform, City Geography Markup Language
(CityGML) is the comprehensive semantic standard for exchanging
urban information. Despite having different modeling languages,
IFC and CityGML share several similarities in that both are object-
based and recognize infrastructure, buildings, and plans as com-
ponents, which allows for their mapping and integration (Level 3.
A). However, differences in application domains and user expertise
complicate collaboration between these two platforms. In the latest
version of IFC standards, IFC4, a higher level of interoperability
was considered to support the integration of IFC-based BIM and
GIS data. The current versions of IFC and CityGML, however, are
not yet sophisticated enough to capture the information of the entire
built environment of urban and infrastructure projects (Liu et al.
2017).
Through the integration of BIM and GIS in Level 3.A, munic-
ipalities could also provide a much more meaningful review of
proposals. Examples include advanced city-level planning reviews
(Level 3.B), integrated construction logistics planning considering
all urban activities in the neighborhood (Level 3.C), and smart
urban asset management capacities across the entire asset portfolio
of the municipality (Level 3.D). The integrated approach of Level 3
e-permitting could also inform intelligent policy making and reg-
ulation drafting, which is essential in keeping up with the demands
of future smart cities (Marsal-Llacuna and Segal 2017).
In Level 3.B, instead of analyzing buildings as stand-alone en-
tities, the integration of BIM and GIS would allow buildings to be
evaluated in the context of their urban settings and with consider-
ation to their spatial relationship with other buildings, both during
and after construction. Researchers have shown that adjacent
J. Manage. Eng.
 buildings and their shading on a proposed building can significantly BIM Implementation Is Key
impact that building’s energy performance (Pisello et al. 2012).
The construction industry’s inertia and resistance to the adoption of
Specifically, shading increases heating and lighting loads and de-
new technologies have been acknowledged and well documented
creases cooling loads, while reflection off other buildings can in-
(Nikas et al. 2007). However, for successful implementation of a
crease cooling energy requirements (Han et al. 2017). Integration of
model-based e-permitting system in which BIM implementation is
BIM and GIS is also suggested for analyzing view corridors and in
a key component, the change needs to go beyond the construction
other urban planning considerations to fully understand the impact
industry and into government agencies and municipalities, which
that a new development might have (Rafiee et al. 2014). Archi-
will be a much more difficult undertaking. Having said that, there are
tectural acoustic analysis of the buildings in their urban setting, with
countries around the world that have been more successful than
the help of traffic and noise mapping, would allow for analysis of
others in adopting new technologies and innovative processes, par-
internal noise levels, which affect the quality of life for building
ticularly in relation to the implementation of BIM practices. Singa-
occupants.
pore has effectively implemented a top-down approach in which the
Dealing with construction site logistics has long been a chal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lenge for the construction industry, particularly in dense urban en-
vironments (Ali et al. 2016). For example, the City of Toronto’s
Tall Building Design Guidelines (TBDG) require that towers in
Toronto be built to the edge of their property line (City of Toronto
2013), thus complicating site logistic planning, including the opti-
mized locations of tower cranes, storage areas for construction
material, and traffic management around the construction site. In
Level 3.C, the integration of GIS data with BIM would allow traffic
patterns to be considered in logistics planning, site optimization,
and traffic management of construction sites. More important, a
city-level planning review could be performed and site logistics
activities for different construction sites in an area could be coor-
dinated to minimize the overall disturbances to their neighbor-
hood. Finally, such integration could dramatically enhance the au-
tomatic tracking of materials and deliveries of critical items, which
are currently being performed with a combination of bar code, radio-
frequency identification (RFID), ultra-wideband (UWB), and Global
Positioning System (GPS) technologies (Ergen et al. 2007; Razavi
and Haas 2010). The latter application is more applicable for pre-
fabricated and preassembled construction strategies, taking advan-
tage of lean construction practices and therefore requiring a more
advanced level of logistics planning (Sacks et al. 2010).
Use of BIM for automated building and facility management
(Level 2.D) was identified as one of the advantages of investing in
BIM from design through to review, construction, and operation
and maintenance phases of a facility. In Level 3.D of the developed
framework, the integration of BIM and GIS data allows the facility
management capabilities of BIM to extend beyond a single facility
and to encompass the entire asset portfolio of a municipality, thus
providing a range of smart urban asset management functionalities.
These applications could range from energy sharing between
buildings (Kayo et al. 2014) to emergency response systems and
disaster relief efforts (Yamada 1996).
Implementation Barriers and Best Practices
With the recent technological advancements, effective organiza-
tional change adoption has become a core competency for AEC
firms in order to remain competitive in their markets (Lines and
Reddy Vardireddy 2017). Historically, the AEC industry has strug-
gled with several barriers to implementation of information tech-
nology solutions, including cultural resistance to change, cost, and
data-sharing concerns (Fiatech 2007). While some of these con-
cerns still need to be addressed for any IT-application implemen-
tation, the discussions in this section focus specifically on the
barriers that have been identified in the international implementa-
tion of various levels of e-permitting as they relate to the developed
framework of this research. These specific challenges include im-
plementing BIM, managing the transition, and addressing the legal
concerns.
© ASCE
use of BIM for design and later for e-permitting was mandated across
all projects nationally. The United Kingdom is the most successful
country for BIM adoption among western countries. It also imple-
mented a top-down approach by mandating that the industry to move
to BIM (Kassem and Succar 2017). Governments in Hong Kong and
the United Arab Emirates have followed their lead.
Canada, on the other hand, has a middle-out dynamic approach
to BIM implementation, which means that large organizations adopt
BIM and then push for regulatory bodies and their supply chain to
follow (Kassem and Succar 2017). This creates a substantial gap
between the municipalities using traditional paper-based and manual
permitting and review processes on one hand and the AEC industry
slowly but surely adopting BIM for design and internal code com-
pliance checking on the other hand. This gap creates significant
inefficiencies in the review and construction permitting process and
frustration on the part of industry leaders who have adopted BIM
practices but are unable to capitalize fully on their investment due to
the lack of government support.
The benefit of Canada’s middle-out approach is that once the
municipalities and the federal government start mandating BIM for
new projects and for e-permitting processes, the learning curve of
the industry will be much smaller than those experienced by other
countries, and the costs involved in training the local industry will be
substantially lower. Taking these factors into consideration, while
Canada has been slow in joining other world leaders in adopting
BIM practices broadly, its mandate of BIM seems inevitable.
Managing Transition
Implementation of the entire automated model-based e-permitting
system, or even its partial implementation, requires both a process
and a technology overhaul for most municipalities. As with any
other major overhauls in an industry as diverse as the AEC industry,
the transition period is critical and needs to be carefully managed.
The top-down approach of Singapore, the United Kingdom,
Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, and others provides more
control but could prove to be expensive for the authorities, whereas
the transition period in a middle-out approach may be associated
with long durations of uncertainty but may incur less direct cost to
the government. Despite the higher direct cost of the top-down
approach and the level of structure and control that it requires, the
top-down approach provides leadership and may be the preferred
strategy for managing the transition to implementation of an auto-
mated model-based e-permitting system.
Managing the transition includes training the highly qualified
personnel who will lead the industry during the transition. Many
international and national organizations, such as buildingSMART
International, support governments and organizations in imple-
mentation of BIM practices.
Singapore’s transition provides a number of lessons for any
municipality or government agency that may want to engage in a
04019025-7 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025

 top-down transition. In addition to the software and hardware costs
of implementing Singapore’s e-permitting system at the govern-
ment level, the country’s Building and Construction Authority
(BCA) allocated 4.2 million US dollars (USD) specifically for BIM
adoption, covering training, consultancy, and software costs in the
construction sector (BCA 2011a). That translates to approximately
USD 0.75 per capita. The cost would be much higher for larger
countries to provide the same level of support. On the other hand,
the middle-out approach has the lowest direct cost to the govern-
ment as industry leaders and consequently their supply chain absorb
the training and transition costs prior to any mandate from the
government. Of course, this results in substantial inefficiencies in
the system, which may add up to much higher overall costs to the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
industry. Regardless, the costs of implementation and transition
remain significant barriers to implementation of automated model-
based e-permitting systems.
Legal Concerns
A number of legal concerns need to be addressed prior to any suc-
cessful implementation of an automated model-based e-permitting
system; some are more challenging than others. For example, the
submission and transfer of files over the internet originally raised
concerns of confidentiality and security of drawings by AEC in-
dustry professionals. This concern has been substantially mitigated
by use of digital signatures and through mandatory encryption of
files in the submission process (Letch and Teo 2015). There are also
regulations and norms that are specific to a country or a region, such
as those related to privacy, government transparency, and respon-
siveness. For example, some Canadian provinces require local
governments to store their online information in servers located in
Canada (Afzalan et al. 2017).
Another legal challenge is the lack of a single integrated system
for plan submission that would be adopted by all involved agencies.
While this is a significant challenge, harmonizing and standardizing
the rules and the way drawings are delivered to different agencies
would substantially improve efficiency and reduce confusion. For
example, in Singapore, a set of industry standards by the Singapore
chapter of the International Alliance for Interoperability [IAI(S)]
was suggested and embraced by the Construction Industry IT
Standards Committee (CITC). Professional institutions and asso-
ciations also signed a memorandum to commit to the use of those
standards (Letch and Teo 2015). The UK government implemented
a similar approach but included a phased implementation plan,
slowly bringing different sectors of the industry on board, which has
proved to be very successful (McAuley et al. 2017). There are now a
number of international standards that can be adopted, based on
which national guidelines can be developed for each country to
address its unique needs.
Conclusions
This paper presented a thorough review of the existing international
e-permitting systems, which were then categorized into specifically
defined e-permitting levels based on their degrees of automation
and integration. Specifically, Level 1 e-permitting represents sys-
tems that take advantage of a centralized document management
system with an embedded workflow engine. In Level 2 of the
framework, a model-based approach is used based on the submis-
sion of building models for e-permitting and automated code
compliance checking. It was also shown that Level 2 e-permitting
could enable other applications during the construction and opera-
tion and maintenance phases of a facility.
© ASCE 04019025-8
J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025
Based on this review and state-of-the-art technological ad-
vancements in the AEC industry, a three-level e-permitting frame-
work was then developed, expanding beyond the existing two levels
of e-permitting and spanning a project’s entire life cycle, from
document submission for construction permitting to operation and
maintenance of the built facility. Level 3 e-permitting is introduced
in this research as a sophisticated city planning tool that takes full
advantage of the technological advancements in the AEC industry
and the integration and automation potentials that can be incorpo-
rated within an e-permitting system. In particular, the integration of
BIM with GIS data in Level 3 would allow a building project to be
evaluated in its urban context, enabling several smart urban man-
agement applications. Specifically, a design of the building would
be evaluated based on its surrounding urban context; its construc-
tion would be planned with respect to other urban features and
activities in its neighborhood; and its building model would feed
into the city’s smart urban asset management platform, providing
valuable information that otherwise would not be captured, com-
municated, and analyzed at a city level.
Review of the barriers to implementation of e-permitting sys-
tems and international best practices concluded that successful
implementation of an e-permitting framework will require the full
support of local governing agencies.
Limitations and Future Research
The entire framework of this research was validated by a group of
eight experts in an electronic permitting working group as part of
the Residential Construction Council of Ontario’s investigation and
report titled “Streamlining the Development and Building Ap-
provals Process in Ontario” (RESCON 2018). In addition, Levels 1
and 2 of the framework have been implemented in part by munic-
ipalities around the world. A specific limitation of this research is
the lack of implementation of the third level of the framework in a
municipality and therefore the lack of key performance indicators to
validate the effectiveness of the third level. However, as discussed
in this paper, partial implementations of Levels 1 and 2 have already
resulted in significant productivity improvements in municipalities
around the world.
Future research can focus on implementation of Level 3 in a
municipality, which will also uncover a wide range of research
opportunities, specifically in terms of integration advantages for
BIM with GIS and other city planning tools, resulting in city
planning and evaluation capabilities that were not possible in any
permitting or e-permitting platform in the past.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
Grant CRDPJ 479087-15 and the Residential Construction Council
of Ontario (RESCON). This work was undertaken through the
University of Toronto’s Building Tall Research Centre.
References
Afzalan, N., T. W. Sanchez, and J. Evans-Cowley. 2017. “Creating smarter
cities: Considerations for selecting online participatory tools.” Cities 67
(Jul): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.002.
Ali, H., P. Marquis, B. Y. McCabe, A. Shahi, R. Lyall, and J. Francavilla.
2016. “Challenges of site logistics for tall building construction.” In
J. Manage. Eng.
 Vol. 1 of Proc., CSCE 2016 Annual General Conf., 155–165. Montréal:
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
Avolve. 2017. “Canadian cities rely on ProjectDox.” Accessed October
20, 2017. https://www.avolvesoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10
/Canada.pdf.
Azhar, S. 2011. “Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits,
risks, and challenges for the AEC industry.” Leadership Manage.
Eng. 11 (3): 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630
.0000127.
BCA (Building and Construction Authority). 2011a. “BIM your way
to higher productivity.” Build Smart (4): 2–3. Accessed January 7,
2017. https://www.bca.gov.sg/Publications/BuildSmart/others/buildsmart
_11issue4.pdf.
BCA (Building and Construction Authority). 2011b. “The world’s first BIM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
e-submission system.” Build Smart (9): 4. Accessed January 7, 2017.
https://www.bca.gov.sg/Publications/BuildSmart/others/buildsmart
_11issue9.pdf.
BCA (Building and Construction Authority). 2013. “BIM roadmap: Industry-
wide BIM adoption by 2015.” Build Smart (18): 2. Accessed January 7,
2017. https://www.bca.gov.sg/publications/BuildSmart/others/buildsmart
_13issue18.pdf.
Chong, H. Y., R. Lopez, J. Wang, X. Wang, and Z. Zhao. 2016. “Com-
parative analysis on the adoption and use of BIM in road infrastructure
projects.” J. Manage. Eng. 32 (6): 05016021. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000460.
City of Markham. 2017. “Markham’s building and development plan review
goes online.” Accessed September 26, 2017. https://www.markham.ca
/wps/portal/Markham/BusinessDevelopment/PlanningAndDevelopment
Services/ePlan/!ut/p/a1/jdBBDoIwEAXQs3CCfmgpdVnbCAWUQFLE
bgwrQqLownh-kbC1OLuZvJ_JDHGkI27q3-PQv8bH1N--veNXVqVK
la2oo4YBxug2Puk65Ds-g8sMVCozlpQAbKphknpvq2NBYfh_efwoiSW
fG6hQFsi.
City of Mississauga. 2017. “eplans.” Accessed September 26, 2017. http://
www.mississauga.ca/portal/residents/eplanspermits.
City of New York. 2017. “The HUB enrollment.” Accessed October 3,
2017. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/buildings/industry/the-hub.page.
City of Toronto. 2013. “Tall building design guidelines.” Accessed January
20, 2016. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/96ea-city
planning-tall-buildings-may2013-final-AODA.pdf.
Clayton, F., and D. Amborski. 2017. Countering myths about rising
ground-related housing prices in the GTA: New supply really matters.
Toronto: Ryerson Univ., Centre for Urban Research and Land Devel-
opment.
Ding, L., R. Drogemuller, M. Rosenman, D. Marchant, and J. Gero. 2006.
“Automating code checking for building designs: DesignCheck.” In Cli-
ents Driving Construction Innovation: Moving Ideas into Practice, edited
by K. Brown, K. Hampson, and P. Brandon, 113–126. Brisbane, QLD,
Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation.
DOE. 2014. “Software and web tools.” Building Energy Codes Program.
Accessed October 17, 2017. https://www.energycodes.gov/software
-and-web-tools.
Eastman, C., J. Lee, Y. Jeong, and J. Lee. 2009. “Automatic rule-based
checking of building designs.” Autom. Constr. 18 (8): 1011–1033.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.07.002.
Eastman, C., P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, and K. Liston. 2008. BIM handbook: A
guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, de-
signers, engineers, and contractors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ergen, E., B. Akinci, and R. Sacks. 2007. “Tracking and locating compo-
nents in a precast storage yard utilizing radio frequency identification
technology and GPS.” Autom. Constr. 16 (3): 354–367. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.07.004.
Evolta. 2017a. “Case Finland.” Accessed October 21, 2017. https://evolta.fi
/en/case/case-finland/.
Evolta. 2017b. Permit Point: Brief of the system. Vaughan, ON, Canada:
RESCON.
Farghaly, K., F. H. Abanda, C. Vidalakis, and G. Wood. 2018. “Taxonomy for
BIM and asset management semantic interoperability.” J. Manage. Eng.
34 (4): 04018012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000610.
Fiatech. 2007. On best practices in electronic plan submittal, review,
tracking and storage. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute, Univ.
of Texas at Austin.
© ASCE 04019025-9
J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025
Fiatech. 2008. From paper to digits: Steps to move your plan submittal,
review, tracking and storage processes into the digital age. Austin, TX:
Construction Industry Institute, Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Fiatech. 2012. AutoCodes project: Phase 1, proof-of-concept final report.
Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute, Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Fiatech. 2013. An overview of existing BIM standards and guidelines: A
report to Fiatech AutoCodes project. Austin, TX: Construction Industry
Institute, Univ. of Texas at Austin.
Foo Sing, T., and Q. Zhong. 2001. “Construction and Real Estate Network
(CORENET).” Facilities 19 (11=12): 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1108
/EUM0000000005831.
Gholizadeh, P., B. Esmaeili, and P. Goodrum. 2018. “Diffusion of building
information modeling functions in the construction industry.” J. Man-
age. Eng. 34 (2): 04017060. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943
-5479.0000589.
Giel, B., and R. R. A. Issa. 2014. “Framework for evaluating the BIM
competencies of building owners.” In Proc., 2014 Int. Conf. on Com-
puting in Civil and Building Engineering, edited by R. I. Issa and I. Flood,
552–559. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413616
.069.
Golparvar-Fard, M., J. Bohn, J. Teizer, S. Savarese, and F. Peña-Mora.
2011. “Evaluation of image-based modeling and laser scanning accu-
racy for emerging automated performance monitoring techniques.”
Autom. Constr. 20 (8): 1143–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011
.04.016.
Halverson, M. A., B. Shui, and M. Evans. 2009. Country report on building
energy codes in the United States. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute.
Hamledari, H., B. McCabe, S. Davari, and A. Shahi. 2017. “Automated
schedule and progress updating of IFC-based 4D BIMs.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 31 (4): 04017012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943
-5487.0000660.
Han, Y., J. E. Taylor, and A. L. Pisello. 2017. “Exploring mutual shading
and mutual reflection inter-building effects on building energy perfor-
mance.” Appl. Energy 185 [Pt. 2 (Jan)]: 1556–1564. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.170.
Hinton, J. 2017. City of Mississauga e-plan presentation for Ministry of
Housing. Mississauga, ON, Canada: City of Mississauga.
Hui, I. 2017. “Shaping the coast with permits: Making the state regulatory
permitting process transparent with text mining.” Coastal Manage.
45 (3): 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2017.1303694.
Irizarry, J., and D. B. Costa. 2016. “Exploratory study of potential appli-
cations of unmanned aerial systems for construction management tasks.”
J. Manage. Eng. 32 (3): 05016001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000422.
Kassem, M., and B. Succar. 2017. “Macro BIM adoption: Comparative
market analysis.” Autom. Constr. 81 (Sep): 286–299. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2017.04.005.
Kayo, G., A. Hasan, and K. Siren. 2014. “Energy sharing and matching in
different combinations of buildings, CHP capacities and operation
strategy.” Energy Build. 82 (Oct): 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.enbuild.2014.07.077.
Khan, A., and K. Hornbæk. 2011. “Big data from the built environment.” In
Proc., 2nd Int. Workshop on Research in the Large, 29–32. New York:
Association for Computing Machinery.
Lam, K. P. 2004. “Building performance simulation in the Singapore con-
struction industry IT network.” J. Archit. Plann. Res. 21 (4): 312–320.
Lampe, H. W. 2017. “Municipalities’ willingness to adopt process inno-
vations: Evidence for higher cost-efficiency.” Local Government Stud.
43 (5): 707–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1324428.
Lawrence, A. 2015. “How Boston is making permitting and licensing
easier.” Data-Smart City Solutions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
School, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Ac-
cessed October 16, 2017. http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article
/how-boston-is-making-permitting-and-licensing-easier-621.
Lee, H., J.-K. Lee, S. Park, and I. Kim. 2016. “Translating building legis-
lation into a computer-executable format for evaluating building permit
requirements.” In 32nd Int. Symp. on Automation and Robotics in
Construction, edited by M. Malaska and R. Heikkilä. Special issue,
Autom. Constr. 71, Pt. 1 (Nov): 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon
.2016.04.008.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Lee, S., J. Yu, and D. Jeong. 2015. “BIM acceptance model in construction
organizations.” J. Manage. Eng. 31 (3): 04014048. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000252.
Letch, N., and J. Teo. 2015. “Accounting for the contexts of government
service transformation: The case of building approvals in Singapore.”
Transforming Government: People, Process Policy 9 (3): 352–369.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-08-2014-0035.
Liao, L., and E. Ai Lin Teo. 2018. “Organizational change perspective on
people management in BIM implementation in building projects.” J.
Manage. Eng. 34 (3): 04018008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000604.
Lines, B. C., and P. K. Reddy Vardireddy. 2017. “Drivers of organizational
change within the AEC industry: Linking change management practices
with successful change adoption.” J. Manage. Eng. 33 (6): 04017031.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Western Ontario on 08/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000548.
Liu, X., X. Wang, G. Wright, J. C. P. Cheng, X. Li, and R. Liu. 2017. “A
state-of-the-art review on the integration of building information mod-
eling (BIM) and geographic information system (GIS).” ISPRS Int. J.
Geo-Inf. 6 (2): 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6020053.
Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L., and M. E. Segal. 2017. “The Intelligenter Method
(II) for ‘smarter’ urban policy-making and regulation drafting.” Cities
61 (Jan): 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.006.
Mayo, G., and R. R. A. Issa. 2016. “Nongeometric building information
needs assessment for facilities management.” J. Manage. Eng. 32 (3):
04015054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000414.
McAuley, B., A. Hore, and R. West. 2017. BICP global BIM study: Lessons
for Ireland’s BIM programme. Dublin, Ireland: Construction IT Alli-
ance (CitA). https://doi.org/10.21427/D7M049.
Nawari, N. O., and A. Alsaffar. 2015. “Understanding computable building
codes.” Civ. Eng. Archit. 3 (6): 163–171. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea
.2015.030601.
NBS (National Building Specification). 2017. NBS national BIM report
2017. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: RIBA Enterprises.
Nikas, A., A. Poulymenakou, and P. Kriaris. 2007. “Investigating ante-
cedents and drivers affecting the adoption of collaboration technologies
in the construction industry.” Autom. Constr. 16 (5): 632–641. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.10.003.
novaCITYNETS. 2017. “e-Transformation to a First World City.” Accessed
January 21, 2017. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEDEVELOP
MENT/Resources/2_novaCITYNETS.pdf.
Official Statistics of Finland. 2017. “Preliminary population statistics
2017.” Statistics Finland. Accessed October 29, 2017. http://www.stat.fi
/til/vamuu/2017/index_en.html.
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2017. “Ontario population projections update,
2017–2041.” Accessed October 29, 2017. https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en
/economy/demographics/projections/.
Pauwels, P., D. Van Deursen, R. Verstraeten, J. De Roo, R. De Meyer,
R. Van de Walle, and J. Van Campenhout. 2011. “A semantic rule
© ASCE 04019025-10
J. Manage. Eng., 2019, 35(6): 04019025
checking environment for building performance checking.” Autom.
Constr. 20 (5): 506–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.11.017.
Pisello, A. L., J. E. Taylor, X. Xu, and F. Cotana. 2012. “Inter-building
effect: Simulating the impact of a network of buildings on the accuracy
of building energy performance predictions.” Build. Environ. 58 (Dec):
37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.017.
Preidel, C., and A. Borrmann. 2015. “Automated code compliance check-
ing based on a visual language and building information modeling.”
In Proc., 32nd Int. Symp. on Automation and Robotics in Construction,
256–263. Watford, UK: International Association for Automation and
Robotics in Construction. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2015/0033.
Rafiee, A., E. Dias, S. Fruijtier, and H. Scholten. 2014. “From BIM to geo-
analysis: View coverage and shadow analysis by BIM=GIS integration.”
In 12th Int. Conf. on Design and Decision Support Systems in Archi-
tecture and Urban Planning, DDSS 2014, edited by H. Timmermans.
Special issue, Procedia Environ. Sci. 22 (2014): 397–402. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2014.11.037.
Razavi, S. N., and C. T. Haas. 2010. “Multisensor data fusion for on-site
materials tracking in construction.” Autom. Constr. 19 (8): 1037–1046.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.07.017.
RESCON (Residential Construction Council of Ontario). 2018. Stream-
lining the development and building approvals process in Ontario.
Vaughan, ON, Canada: RESCON.
Sacks, R., L. Koskela, B. A. Dave, and R. Owen. 2010. “Interaction of lean
and building information modeling in construction.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 136 (9): 968–980. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000203.
Shahi, K., B. Y. McCabe, A. Shahi, P. De Berardis, and R. Lyall. 2017.
“Evaluation of tall building construction permitting process in Toronto.”
In Proc., 6th CSCE=CRC Int. Construction Specialty Conf., 1–10.
Montréal: Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.
Singh, I. 2017. “BIM adoption and implementation around the world: Ini-
tiatives by major nations.” Geospatial World. Accessed October 29,
2017. https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/bim-adoption-around-the
-world/.
Solihin, W., and C. Eastman. 2015. “Classification of rules for automated
BIM rule checking development.” Autom. Constr. 53 (May): 69–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.003.
Statistics Canada. 2015. “Population and demographic factors of growth
by census division, provinces and territories.” Accessed November 6,
2017. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214-x/2016000/tbl/tbl3.5-eng
.htm.
World Bank and IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2013. Doing
business 2014: Understanding regulations for small and medium-size
enterprises. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Yamada, T. 1996. “A network flow approach to a city emergency evacu-
ation planning.” Int. J. Syst. Sci. 27 (10): 931–936. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00207729608929296.
J. Manage. Eng.