Future Direction: Can IFC Become a Real Design KPI for an Entire EPC Project?

Project progress is normally measured through schedules, deliverables, document status, engineering hours and management reporting.

3D models contain another form of evidence.

They record the evolving engineered product.

The question is whether that evidence can become a useful project-level design KPI.

This is one of the future directions being explored for VoxelStudio Model Bridge.

Why model data is attractive

Unlike a subjective status statement, an IFC file is a concrete deliverable.

It contains represented systems, components and geometry at a specific date.

If successive deliveries are preserved, their changes can be measured.

If all project models are included, those measurements can potentially be aggregated.

That creates an interesting new layer for Design Managers and Project Engineering Managers.

What a project KPI could measure

A credible first-generation KPI would avoid claiming direct percentage completion.

Instead, it could measure observable indicators such as:

• current unique represented 3D elements;
• new elements per reporting period;
• deleted elements;
• modified elements;
• active model packages;
• change intensity by discipline;
• model growth by discipline;
• time since last revision;
• package-level stability/volatility.

These values describe the behaviour of the digital design deliverables.

They do not replace the project schedule.

Example EPC view

Imagine a project with 25 active IFC models.

A weekly dashboard could show:

Piping

• 8 active model packages
• strong increase in represented content
• high modification activity

Equipment

• moderate increase
• several new vendor packages

Structure

• stable for three weeks
• low modification activity

Electrical

• strong growth
• one package not updated for 21 days

That immediately gives the project team questions to investigate.

The system does not decide whether the situation is good or bad.

It makes the pattern visible.

Why object count alone is insufficient

A project KPI must avoid a simplistic “more objects = more progress” assumption.

Different disciplines have different modelling densities.

One large equipment item can represent substantial engineering effort, while a piping model may contain thousands of relatively small components.

Property and documentation development may continue without major geometry changes.

This means project-wide IFC analytics should combine several indicators rather than rely on one number.

Change intensity may be as important as model size

Late-stage design should often become more stable.

If a supposedly mature package continues to show very high geometry turnover, that may indicate unresolved design work or interfaces.

A future KPI could therefore distinguish:

• growth;
• rework;
• deletions;
• stabilisation.

This is more informative than total size alone.

Connecting model evidence to project planning

The most interesting long-term possibility is not an isolated BIM dashboard.

It is linking model evidence with established project information:

• engineering schedule;
• document register;
• discipline milestones;
• package ownership;
• planned issue dates;
• design maturity expectations.

Then the project team could compare reported progress with observed model-development behaviour.

That remains a future concept and would require careful validation.

But the technical path begins with reliable multi-revision IFC analysis.

Why IFC is suitable as the neutral layer

A whole-project system cannot assume one native authoring platform.

IFC provides a common exchange layer across many disciplines and contractors.

Model Bridge already works toward source-aware interpretation of exports from AVEVA E3D, Autodesk Revit and SolidWorks/3DEXPERIENCE.

Future adapters could broaden that coverage.

The objective is not to erase differences between authoring tools.

It is to create a common project-level evidence framework while retaining source context.

From comparator to design intelligence

The first Model Bridge release is a comparator.

Its immediate value is clear: compare revisions, detect changes and generate understandable reports.

The larger vision is more ambitious:

use the complete history of project IFC deliveries as a measurable record of design evolution.

For BIM Managers, that means better visibility into model changes.

For Design Managers, it means trends across disciplines.

For Project Engineering Managers, it could eventually provide an additional independent KPI for the digital design process.

That is where the multi-IFC comparator can evolve next.