Which Valuation Number Answers Which Question?
Of the eleven numbers on the Data Value Ladder, only one belongs in financial balance sheets, only one represents a real transaction price, and only one measures direct authoring effort. Use this quick reference guide to select the right metric for every boardroom, audit, or commercial discussion.
Quick Lookup Matrix
Click any question below to jump directly to its complete economic rationale and accounting treatment.
| Someone Asks | Show Them | Economic Standard |
|---|---|---|
| “What could we put on our balance sheet?” → | Carrying amount (if recognised) or Depreciated replacement cost | IAS 38 / RJ 210 / GASB 51 |
| “What would it cost to get this back?” → | Re-acquisition cost (or Current cost) | Cost side: physical survey & scanning |
| “Should we write it down (impair it)?” → | Recoverable amount against Carrying amount | IAS 36 / IPSAS 21 impairment test |
| “What would we lose without it?” → | Deprival value | min(Re-acquisition cost, Value in use) |
| “What should we pay for it?” → | Transfer value | Buyer’s alternative ceiling |
| “Is our assurance budget justified?” → | Value in use | O&M operational cost savings |
| “What would it cost to rebuild this file?” → | Reproduction cost | Re-authoring hours at blended rate |
| “Why should leadership care about this file?” → | Value at stake | Contract magnitude (exposure, not worth) |
| “What did it cost us to make?” → | Origination cost | Architectural & engineering design fee |
Note: Of the eleven numbers, only the carrying amount belongs in a formal set of financial accounts.
Detailed Breakdown by Question
“What could we put on our balance sheet?”
Financial controllers and statutory auditors reject "BIM replacement cost" or "market value" because bespoke building data has no active secondary market. Under IAS 38 (IFRS), RJ 210 (Dutch GAAP), IPSAS 31 (Public Sector), and GASB 51 (US State/Local Governments), digital assets must be recorded at historical cost less accumulated amortisation and impairment.
If the file was delivered as part of an unsegregated design-build contract, ForensicBIM’s measured Reproduction Cost serves as the lowest defensible capitalisation benchmark at handover, which is then amortised straight-line across its useful life.
“What would it cost to get this back if we lost it?”
Once an asset is physically constructed, you cannot replace the data by sitting a BIM modeler in front of a computer if drawings or records are missing. You must survey reality: deploy 3D laser scanners, mobilize traffic management, carry out destructive exploratory openings, and trace concealed MEP services.
Re-acquisition Cost is the honest replacement number for built fabric. For underground infrastructure, foundations, or hazardous industrial installations, the data may be physically unrecoverable at any price.
“Should we write it down (impair it)?”
Under IAS 36 and IPSAS 21, an annual impairment review requires comparing the book Carrying Amount with the asset's Recoverable Amount. If the model has fallen behind reality (e.g. alterations were made on site without updating the IFC model), its utility drops.
When the Recoverable Amount falls below the net book value, an immediate impairment charge must be booked. An unmaintained digital model will steadily impair to nil.
“What would we lose without it?”
Deprival Value (championed by Bonbright, Baxter, and public sector accounting frameworks in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) captures the total economic injury suffered if deprived of an asset tonight.
An owner will spend up to the cost of replacing the data (Re-acquisition Cost), provided that cost does not exceed what the data earns or saves them (Value in Use). It represents the single most intellectually sound valuation of data to its current holder.
“What should we pay a third party for it?”
Transfer Value is the only figure on the entire ladder that represents an actual negotiated exchange price. It is not governed by what the seller spent to author the file. Instead, it is strictly capped by the buyer’s next best alternative (what it would cost the buyer to survey or rebuild the information themselves).
From this ceiling, the buyer deducts the cost of checking, cleaning, and re-classifying the seller’s file. It is always presented as a range.
“Is our quality assurance & verification budget justified?”
When project sponsors question a €25,000 model audit or information management fee, comparing it to Reproduction Cost (€8,000) makes the assurance fee look excessive. But comparing it to Value in Use (€450,000 in avoided repeat surveys, faster fault-finding, and automated asset registration) demonstrates an overwhelming 18× ROI.
Value in Use proves why spending money on data health and schema validation saves orders of magnitude during asset operations.
“What would it cost to rebuild this file?”
This is the question BIM specialists intuitively answer: “How many hours of authoring and coordination would it take to recreate this model from design drawings?”
ForensicBIM computes this figure objectively by applying calibrated authoring productivity factors across every IFC element, priced at the transparent blended hourly rate (€85/hr baseline). It measures transcription, not engineering design.
“Why should executive leadership care about this file?”
Executive boards rarely engage with discussions about property sets or GUID syntax. Showing them Value at Stake links data hygiene directly to enterprise exposure: the €25M capital expenditure or the €2M annual maintenance program steered by the digital model.
However, it must be explicitly presented as exposure at risk. Framing a €25M contract as "the model's value" will cause financial controllers to dismiss the entire analysis.
“What did it cost us to create?”
Clients frequently conflate the €500,000 structural design invoice with the value of the structural IFC file. The design fee paid for engineering calculations, code compliance, optioneering, and professional liability.
The IFC file is merely one manifestation of that design knowledge, alongside 2D PDF drawings, specifications, and calculation notes. Origination Cost belongs to the design, not to the file.
Stakeholder Perspective Guide
Summary of which metric to lead with depending on who sits across the table:
Lead with Carrying Amount (IAS 38 / RJ 210 capitalisation) and Recoverable Amount (IAS 36 impairment testing). Emphasise that unmaintained data impairs directly on the balance sheet.
Lead with Value in Use (30-year O&M avoided costs) and Re-acquisition Cost (prohibitive cost of re-surveying buried or closed structures).
Lead with Reproduction Cost (calibrated authoring hours) and Depreciated Replacement Cost (penalties for missing properties, unclassified geometry, and schema violations).
Lead with Deprival Value (actual economic loss if data is destroyed tonight) and Value at Stake (contractual capital exposure governed by the data).