4 ways to raise the balance sheet value of your BIM data (and which ones work)
Summary
Four routes are often suggested for putting a higher value for BIM data on the balance sheet. Only two of them can raise the carrying amount: allocating the right costs to the model, and an acquisition. The other two raise what the data is worth to you, but not the number your auditor will accept.
This matters because the real goal is not a bigger number. It is recognising the data at an amount you can defend, so that you can budget to maintain it over its useful life.
How BIM data gets on the balance sheet
BIM data is recognised at cost, not at what it feels worth. It is an intangible asset, and almost every framework allows revaluation to fair value only when there is an active market. There is no active market for BIM data: every model is unique, and models are not traded second-hand.
So the carrying amount starts from the costs you can attribute to the data. It is then amortised over the data’s useful life and tested for impairment. The frameworks differ in detail but agree on this. For the framework-by-framework detail, see Why BIM data is worth less on the balance sheet than the industry thinks.
| Framework | Applies to | Revaluation of BIM data | Point to note |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFRS (IAS 38) | Listed companies, many large private groups | Only with an active market, so in practice no | Strict rules on which costs may be capitalised |
| US GAAP (ASC 350) | US companies | Not allowed | Cost model only |
| GASB 51 | US state and local governments | Not allowed | Internally generated intangibles only once specific conditions are met |
| IPSAS 31 | Public sector outside the US | Only with an active market | Close to IAS 38 |
| EU national GAAP (e.g. RJ 210 in the Netherlands, HGB in Germany) | Non-listed EU companies | Generally no | Capitalised development costs block profit distribution |
| AASB 138 | Australia | Only with an active market | Mirrors IAS 38 |
| CAS 6 | China | Not allowed | Close to IAS 38, cost model only |
| J-GAAP | Japan | Not allowed | Stricter: research and development costs are expensed |
Route 1: allocate development costs to the model and capitalise them
Verdict: raises the carrying amount, if the allocation is right. This is the main legitimate route. Design and modelling costs that are directly attributable to the data can be recognised as an intangible asset instead of being expensed or buried in the cost of the building.
The aim should be to allocate costs correctly, not to allocate more. Watch for these limits:
- Directly attributable costs only. Training, general overhead and rework from inefficiency do not count (IAS 38.67).
- No catching up. Costs that were already expensed in an earlier period cannot be capitalised later (IAS 38.71).
- Moving is not adding. Design costs often already sit in the cost of the building. Carving them out into a separate intangible does not raise the total, and the data’s shorter useful life means faster amortisation.
- Distribution limits. For data made by your own staff, many EU national rules require a reserve or block distributions for capitalised development costs, for example art. 2:365 BW in the Netherlands and § 268(8) HGB in Germany. Equity available for distribution does not go up.
- Internally generated data. IAS 38 and GASB 51 set extra conditions before development costs may be capitalised, such as technical feasibility and the intention and ability to complete and use the data. Data handed over by a designer or contractor was bought, and does not face these extra tests.
An auditor will question an allocation that looks driven by the outcome. Independent evidence of what it would cost to produce the data, and of its quality, is what makes the amount stand up.
Route 2: make the data part of a digital twin or asset management platform
Verdict: raises economic value, not the carrying amount. Data that feeds maintenance planning, inspections and asset management is used more, and so it is worth more to you. Under the cost model, that extra value does not appear on the balance sheet.
What it does do:
- Protects the amount you already recognised. Higher value in use gives headroom in the impairment test, so a write-down is less likely.
- Supports a longer useful life. Data that is kept up to date in a platform stays usable for longer.
Two catches:
- Platform costs are often expensed. If the platform is software-as-a-service, configuration and customisation costs are usually expensed under IFRS (IFRIC agenda decision, April 2021). US GAAP and GASB have their own rules, and none of them adds the value of the data itself.
- Bundling blurs the asset. Once the data is merged into a platform, it is harder to show it as a separate, identifiable asset with its own useful life.
Route 3: earn income from the data through licences or services
Verdict: raises economic value, not the carrying amount. Licence income shows that the data brings future economic benefits, which supports recognising it and passing the impairment test. The income itself goes through profit and loss, not into the carrying amount.
In practice, this route meets three obstacles:
- Ownership. The designer may hold the copyright in the model, and contracts often limit how the data may be reused or passed on.
- Security. For bridges, tunnels and other critical infrastructure, sharing detailed data may be restricted.
- No market. A few licence deals do not create an active market, so they do not open the door to revaluation.
For most public asset owners, licensing is a weak lever.
Route 4: recognition at fair value in an acquisition
Verdict: can raise the carrying amount, but only in the buyer’s accounts. When a company is acquired in a business combination (IFRS 3, ASC 805), the buyer recognises the acquiree’s identifiable intangible assets at fair value, even if the acquiree never recognised them. This is the only route that puts BIM data on a balance sheet at fair value rather than cost.
It is not a lever an asset owner can pull:
- It needs a transaction. The amount appears in the buyer’s consolidated accounts, not in the seller’s.
- Many property deals are not business combinations. Buying a building or a portfolio is often an asset acquisition. The price is then spread over the assets by relative fair value, with no step-up and no goodwill.
- Unidentified data disappears into goodwill. If the data is not identified and valued separately, it is not recognised on its own.
- Fair value is usually measured at replacement cost. With no market prices, valuers estimate what it would cost to recreate the data, which brings you back to rebuild cost.
US governments follow GASB 69 for government combinations, which uses acquisition value for acquisitions and carrying values for mergers.
The four routes at a glance
| Route | Raises carrying amount | Raises economic value | Main watch-out |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Allocate development costs | Yes, if the allocation is right | No | Only directly attributable costs; moving costs is not adding them |
| 2. Digital twin or asset management platform | No | Yes | Platform costs are often expensed; bundling blurs the asset |
| 3. Licences or data services | No | Yes | Ownership, security, and no active market |
| 4. Acquisition | Yes, in the buyer’s accounts only | No | Needs a business combination; fair value is usually replacement cost |
A better goal: a defensible amount
Aim for an amount your auditor can accept, not the highest possible amount. Data that is recognised at a defensible amount gets an owner, an amortisation schedule and a maintenance budget, and data that is maintained keeps its value in use.
forensicBIM gives you independent evidence for each route:
- Route 1: an estimate of what it would cost to rebuild the data, and a quality audit that shows whether the data is fit to be recognised and supports its useful life.
- Routes 2 and 3: value in use and the potential savings in operation and maintenance, as input for the impairment test.
- Route 4: a replacement-cost reference for valuers who measure fair value.
Why the forensicBIM numbers hold up
The forensicBIM valuation is built to stand up to an audit, and to give the same answer every time. The method is proprietary, but the evidence of its accuracy is not:
- Tested blind against experts. Across 54 real models, each valued without its own expert data, 81% of the expert panel’s values fell inside forensicBIM’s stated range.
- Tested on many kinds of models: small supplier parts, buildings of several sizes, bridges, tunnels, roads, rail, detailed rebar and MEP models.
- Repeatable. The same file always gets the same answer, so a valuation can be checked, compared and audited.
- Not inflated by copies. Copy-pasted objects and generated assemblies are priced at the effort they really take, so duplicating geometry does not raise the number.
- Expert-backed and maintained. More than 30 IFC experts advise on values, and the method is versioned and recalibrated as new expert rounds come in.
See Valuation methodology: how the numbers are built for the standards behind the figures and how their accuracy is checked.
Questions to take to your auditor:
- Which costs in our design and construction contracts are directly attributable to the BIM data?
- Is the data a separate intangible asset, or part of the cost of the building or structure?
- What useful life will you accept, and what evidence of data quality do you need for it?
- How will we test the data for impairment, and how often?
- Does capitalising these costs affect our reserves or the profit we can distribute?
Standards referred to
- IFRS: IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, IAS 38 Intangible Assets, IFRS 3 Business Combinations; IFRIC agenda decision on configuration or customisation costs in a cloud computing arrangement (April 2021)
- US GAAP: ASC 350 Intangibles, ASC 805 Business Combinations
- GASB 51 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible Assets; GASB 69 Government Combinations
- IPSAS 31 Intangible Assets
- EU: Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU; Netherlands RJ 210 and art. 2:365 BW; Germany § 248 and § 268(8) HGB
- Australia: AASB 138; China: CAS 6; Japan: J-GAAP accounting standard for research and development costs