Portugal graded against the eight macro maturity components of the BIM adoption literature (Succar & Kassem, 2015), on the BIMMI scale (a = ad-hoc … e = optimised). Facts verified by script against the public sources on 1 September 2026; methodology and sources in the footer.
Components from Succar & Kassem (2015): the eight topics that determine a country's BIM maturity. BIMMI scale: a ad-hoc · b defined · c managed · d integrated · e optimised. The last column says what would raise the grade.
| # | component | grade | one sentence | upgrade trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Objectives, stages and milestones | c | One dated milestone remains in law (the 2030 obligation): DL 108/2026 (Decree-Law) eliminated the 2027 pilot and left the large public works contracts in BIM “whenever possible”; the plan that would carry annual targets is overdue. | Publication of the action plan with annual targets per stage. |
| II | Champions and pushers | b | The designated driver (IMPIC) is dormant: plan overdue, zero presence. Active champions (CT 197, buildingSMART PT) confined to standardisation. | IMPIC publishing and communicating the plan; champions with sectoral reach. |
| III | Regulatory framework | b | A future legal mandate (2030) conditional on a ministerial order not issued; no model tender documents require BIM deliverables today. | The ministerial order under Article 17 of the RJUE (Portugal's building permitting code) + BIM criteria in public procurement. |
| IV | Reference publications | c | The RCM and the NP EN ISO 19650 are real references; the practical layer is missing — guides, protocols, national templates. | A series of national information-management guides. |
| V | Learning and education | b | The strategy itself diagnoses an “insufficiency of specialised training”; training provision is piecemeal, with no structured curricula. | A capacity-building programme with measures for municipalities and SMEs. |
| VI | Measurements and benchmarks | a | Semi-annual reports provided for in the law; nothing published, no national survey, no baseline. The weakest component — and the cheapest to activate. The Painel BIM now measures it on every run. | A national adoption baseline before the ministerial order under Article 17. |
| VII | Standardised parts and deliverables | b | The 19650 series partially adopted (parts 1–3; 4–5 under way); no naming conventions and no national templates. | Complete the series + adopt national reference conventions. |
| VIII | Technological infrastructure | b | Model repositories planned under the “technology” pillar; nothing implemented (the geographic base BDT/SNIT exists, the BIM models do not). | A pilot repository tied to the public works contracts above the threshold of the Public Contracts Code (CCP). |
The only international BIM maturity survey with Portuguese experts: 99 experts, 21 countries, 10 of them Portuguese (2015–16 survey; Kassem & Succar 2017). Values 0–70 per component; green intensity = value. European countries of the sample, ordered by the average of the 8 components — Portugal highlighted at the top and in red.
| country | objectives | champions | regulatory | publications | education | measurement | standardisation | infra. | average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 15 | 50 | 23 | 23 | 33 | 20 | 38 | 48 | 31.3 |
| United Kingdom | 65 | 63 | 58 | 58 | 45 | 38 | 48 | 65 | 55.0 |
| Netherlands | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 38 | 13 | 25 | 50 | 37.6 |
| Finland | 40 | 50 | 30 | 30 | 40 | 5 | 40 | 50 | 35.6 |
| Spain | 33 | 45 | 25 | 25 | 33 | 25 | 33 | 43 | 32.8 |
| Ireland | 25 | 43 | 18 | 18 | 68 | 0 | 33 | 25 | 28.8 |
| Italy | 13 | 25 | 38 | 38 | 25 | 13 | 13 | 38 | 25.4 |
| Switzerland | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 15.6 |
How to read without mistakes. In 2015–16, Portugal was not last in the European queue: it sat slightly above the sample's world average (31.3 vs 27.5), just behind Spain and ahead of Italy, Ireland and Switzerland — with the usual strengths (champions 50, infrastructure 48) and the usual holes (objectives/milestones 15, measurement 20). The United Kingdom led with 55.0 and was the only country with an active and assertive policy (educate, require, monitor) and a top-down dynamic through a mandate in force; Portugal figured under the “fully passive” pattern (inform, encourage, observe), alongside Spain, Italy, Ireland and Switzerland — Spain being the bottom-up case (the small offices first). The Portuguese problem is not the 2015 position: it is that the leaders executed in the meantime — the British mandate was already in force at the time of the survey — and the national strategy only now gets under way, already without the 2027 pilot (eliminated by DL 108/2026) and with the obligation in 2030. This survey was never repeated; the score in section 1 is the qualitative reading of 2026.
Four cross-cutting readings, in the terms of the framework itself.
Portugal is, by design, a top-down case. A governmental driver with a mandate and a future obligation (coercive pressure), unlike Spain, where diffusion climbed from the small offices up to the government (Kassem & Succar, 2017). The risk of the top-down model without execution is that everything stays on paper — which is exactly what the plan's delay demonstrates.
In the policy actions matrix, Portugal is today in the passive column. It legislated (prescribed) for 2030, but in the present it only communicates — and the literature warns: informing does not accelerate diffusion without incentives and requirements (Succar & Kassem, 2015, §3.4). Among the 21 countries studied in 2017, 14 had passive policies; only the United Kingdom combined active action with requirements.
The asymmetry is the diagnosis. Standardisation ahead (IV, VII) against execution and measurement stalled (II, VI). The Portuguese bottleneck is not technical-normative — it is one of execution capacity. In the language of the framework: the country has readiness (laws, standards); it has not yet crossed its Point of Adoption.
The window is open for the market. With the large public works contracts in BIM “whenever possible” as of now and the obligation in 2030, whoever knows how to operate EIR/BEP/CDE in 2026–27 enters the anchor tenders before the capacity shortage — that is the thesis of those who advise and of our daily practice at BIM Conforme.
In May, Portugal approved the national BIM strategy (RCM 89/2026) — and did its normative homework: the NP EN ISO 19650 standards have been published since May 2025, the technical committee works, the law requires architecture projects modelled in BIM from 2030 (the 2027 pilot that Simplex foresaw was eliminated by DL 108/2026, of 29 May). But on 1 September 2026, the action plan that should have been presented in August remains unpublished — and the website of IMPIC, the coordinator of the strategy, does not contain a single mention of BIM.
Assessing Portugal against the eight macro maturity components of the international reference framework (Succar & Kassem, 2015) — objectives and milestones, champions and pushers, regulatory framework, publications, education, measurements, standardisation and infrastructure — the picture is an average of “mid-low” with a revealing asymmetry: what is on paper (strategy, standards, law) grades reasonably; what demands execution (an active driver, measurement, real requirements in public procurement) grades badly or does not exist.
This is not a bureaucratic detail. The innovation-diffusion literature — and comparative experience — shows that legislating, on its own, does not adopt: informing does not accelerate diffusion without incentives and requirements; among the 21 countries studied in 2017, fourteen had purely passive policies and only the United Kingdom combined active action with requirements. Spain showed the inverse path: small offices adopted first and pushed the chain upward to the government. Portugal chose the top-down model — legitimate — but top-down only works when the top executes.
What to watch over the coming months says it all: (1) the publication of the action plan with annual targets; (2) the ministerial order regulating Article 17 of the RJUE; (3) the first tenders above €5.404M to require BIM in fact; (4) any national measurement baseline. While none of this exists, the strategy lives in a drawer — and whoever needs to be ready for 2030 (municipalities, project owners, design teams) cannot wait for the strategy.
That is why preparation is, today, a private competitive advantage and not a public service: decomposing EIRs, answering with traceable BEPs and operating CDEs is the capacity that the first public works contracts in BIM will look for and will not find in the market. The standard is already translated. The strategy is already approved. The country is missing — and whoever does the field work first starts ahead.