Three lessons from Nordic infrastructure projects for integrated digital workflows—from CDE and BIM to GIS, drone data and machine data.
CDE and BIM Are Not Enough: Connecting Them to the Construction Site Is What Matters
When major rail projects embark on digitalisation, the initial focus is often on a Common Data Environment (CDE) and Building Information Modelling (BIM). Both are important: a CDE provides a shared information space, while BIM structures design and model data. However, this combination alone is not sufficient for construction. A reliable picture of actual construction progress emerges only when GIS, regular drone surveys and data from construction machinery and machine control systems are incorporated as well.
Experience from Nordic infrastructure projects therefore points to a pragmatic conclusion: the key question is not how extensively a project uses BIM. What matters is whether design, geospatial, condition and production data are brought together in a practical workflow. This requires a construction execution platform that connects design information with real data from the site, rather than treating BIM as an isolated solution. Infrakit serves this role by bringing models, drawings, geospatial information and construction site data together in a shared, map-based environment. This is particularly relevant to major rail schemes, which involve numerous stakeholders, long corridors and extensive documentation requirements.
Three Lessons from Nordic Rail and Infrastructure Projects
Projects in Finland, Norway and the Baltic region offer different but interconnected insights. Espoo City Rail is a prime example of highly advanced digital workflows. Helsinki Light Rail—the Jokeri Line—opened to passenger service eight months ahead of schedule. The Stange project by Norwegian rail infrastructure manager Bane NOR, meanwhile, demonstrates the close integration of CDE, BIM, GIS and machine data within a shared working environment.
These projects cannot be transferred directly to other contexts. They do, however, demonstrate three principles that are also relevant to rail organisations in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
1. Avoid the “BIM Trap”
BIM can become an obstacle when standards and processes developed for building construction are applied unchanged to major linear infrastructure. During construction in particular, models must not only be coordinated and reviewed; they must also be provided in formats suitable for surveying and machine control. An IFC model cannot usually be transferred directly into a machine control system without further processing. If the contractor has to convert design models or rebuild them for construction, this creates discontinuities in the digital workflow, duplicate effort and additional sources of error.
Rail Baltica illustrates the challenges that can arise when a strong focus on BIM is not sufficiently aligned with the requirements of construction. The BIM models were intended to serve as binding design documents, but highly complex attributes and metadata requirements made it difficult for designers to deliver approved models on time. With no equivalent 2D fallback available, contractors could not always obtain the information they needed to proceed with construction as planned. The lesson is clear: information requirements must be defined around executable construction processes. Contractors need data in formats and structures that genuinely support surveying, construction planning and machine control.
This also changes the role of BIM. Instead of pursuing a complete 3D model for every type of information, projects need a construction-ready hybrid approach that remains connected to all other project information. Critical assets such as manholes and pipes may be modelled as objects, while information such as parcel boundaries or construction areas may be represented more effectively in 2D. The minimum requirement is that all design data is provided in the project’s local coordinate system so it can be placed correctly on the map and used during execution. The standard itself does not determine the value delivered; what matters is an uninterrupted flow of information from design to the machine and back into project documentation.
2. Use GIS and Drone Data to Create a Reliable Record of the Project
A CDE answers the question of where documents and models are stored. GIS and drone data also show what could actually be seen at a specific location and point in time. Regular orthophotos along the route create a visual timeline. Digital elevation models can support volume calculations, while 360-degree imagery provides detailed information from the construction site.
The practical value becomes especially clear when assessing work completed, change orders and payment applications. If the documented condition of a construction site can be traced to a specific point in time, project stakeholders can review the facts using shared data. This does not replace contractual assessment, but it provides a considerably stronger factual basis than scattered photographs, individual reports or the recollections of individual participants.
Such surveys are already established practice in many Nordic project environments. For clients, this means that requirements must be embedded in the tender documents and data delivery plan from the outset. If survey frequency, spatial coverage, accuracy, formats and archiving are not defined until construction is underway, gaps will emerge that are almost impossible to close retrospectively.
3. Connect the Design Model to Production Work on Site
Drones show the visible condition of a construction site. Connected construction machinery provides another perspective by revealing where work was carried out and which data formed the basis for it. In combination with 3D machine control, approved model data can be transferred into production, while feedback from the construction site provides the client with a more complete picture of current conditions.
Bane NOR’s Stange project demonstrates how CDE, BIM, GIS and IoT or machine data can be integrated within a shared platform environment. The client and contractor work with the same project information, connecting the current design revision, geospatial context, documented construction status and production data. The construction models available in the execution platform are the models the machines actually work with, linking design intent to the work carried out on site. The value lies less in any single feature than in the relationships between these different sources of information.
This leads to a specific question for procurement: what data must construction machinery and machine control systems provide, at what quality and with which access rights? Without clear requirements, the connection to the construction site remains optional—and therefore often incomplete.
Once this real site data is available, it can also support task management and schedule monitoring. Tasks can be linked to specific locations, designs and documented site conditions, while actual progress can be assessed against the project schedule. This gives project teams a clearer basis for identifying delays, coordinating follow-up actions and reporting progress using information from the construction site rather than relying solely on manually compiled updates.
Simpler Workflows Begin with Construction
Digital workflows for major projects are often defined early by design and engineering consultancies. This is sensible in principle, but it carries a risk: if the operational workflows of contractors, surveyors, foremen and machine operators are not sufficiently considered, the result can be complex approval procedures and data requirements that require additional effort on site.
This does not automatically create greater control. On the contrary, overly complex processes encourage workarounds, locally stored files and manual conversions. The client may receive the formally required deliverables, but not necessarily the data needed to assess construction activities promptly.
A robust approach therefore begins with a few practical questions: What decision is this information intended to support? Who produces the data within the workflow? Who reviews it? In which system will it remain accessible throughout the project lifecycle? And can it be transferred to the next process step without additional reprocessing?
Real Data from the Construction Site Is What Matters
These questions lead to one central lesson from the Nordic projects: real data from the construction site is what matters. This is not an argument against BIM, but against isolated BIM processes and the assumption that a complete 3D model alone can provide an accurate picture of construction. CDE and BIM provide an important foundation. What ultimately matters, however, is whether they are connected to machine data, drone surveys, GIS and other information that shows what has actually been built.
For infrastructure owners and operators, future-ready procurement must therefore begin with the requirements of construction execution. It must define what data is required, who will provide it and how it will be used from design through construction to final documentation. Rather than procuring BIM as a silo, owners need a construction execution platform that can combine the appropriate mix of 2D and 3D design data with GIS, surveying, drone and machine data. This creates a continuous link between the planned design, its geospatial context and the work actually carried out on site.
A map-based platform such as Infrakit makes these connections usable in day-to-day project delivery. It brings models, drawings and construction site data together at their actual locations and shows how they develop over time. Instead of laboriously cross-checking individual files and systems, clients and contractors can view the same project situation. This allows construction progress to be assessed on a sounder basis, deviations to be identified earlier and issues to be resolved before information gaps result in rework or disputes.
Technology alone, however, does not create this shared working environment. Clear, straightforward roles and approval processes are equally important. The Stange example highlights a decisive success factor: the contractor is not treated as an external data supplier at the edge of the process, but works alongside the client in a shared environment. This transforms the retrospective handover of documents into a continuous flow of information.
For Deutsche Bahn and other Central European rail organisations, the Nordic experience can therefore serve as a benchmark: Does the proposed architecture support actual construction operations? Can surveying, GIS, drone and machine data be integrated without unnecessary intermediate steps? And do the workflows remain clear and practical for the people working on site? Ultimately, a project’s digital maturity is not determined by the number of standards it complies with. What matters is whether all stakeholders can see and understand the same construction activities—and act on that information in time.