A Digital-Permitting Readiness Model for Authorities Having Jurisdiction

Executive summary

Most digital permitting programmes fail on organisational readiness rather than technology. The department that has documented its process, agreed its local requirements and knows its volumes can adopt tooling quickly; the department that has not will spend the pilot discovering its own process.

This model describes five readiness levels across six dimensions, the evidence that demonstrates each level, and the next action that is realistic from there.

Why readiness is assessed before selection

Procurement tends to start with product features. Readiness assessment starts with the department: what is documented, what is measured, who decides, and what the workforce can absorb this year. Federal guidance on responsible AI use makes the same point in a different register — assessment of context and impact precedes deployment [1][2].

The practical benefit is scope control. A department at level 2 that attempts a level 4 deployment will generate work it cannot absorb; the same department running a level 3 pilot can produce evidence that justifies the next step.

The five readiness levels

Levels are not aspirational labels. A department is at the level it can demonstrate with artefacts: a process map, a checklist, a metrics report, a configured rule set with test results.

Six dimensions and the evidence for each

How to run the assessment

Assess with the people who do the work, not only management. Twenty questions is enough if each one asks for an artefact rather than an opinion: not "do you have a documented process" but "show the process map for a Part 9 single detached permit".

Record the result as a baseline with a date. Re-assess after the pilot. The difference between the two assessments is the most credible progress evidence a department can present to council.

What applicants and vendors should expect

A department that publishes its readiness position sets realistic expectations for applicants: which parts of the process are digital, which are not, and what is being piloted. That transparency reduces frustration more effectively than optimistic announcements.

For vendors, the readiness result should shape the proposal. A serious response to a level-2 department scopes documentation and intake work first, rather than proposing full automated checking.

Risks, limitations and safeguards

• Readiness scores can become a compliance exercise. Require artefacts, not self-ratings.
• A high score in integration can mask weak process documentation, which is the more common failure cause.
• Assessment consumes staff time; keep it to a bounded exercise with a stated output.
• Smaller and Indigenous communities may have different constraints and priorities; the model should be applied proportionately, not as a maturity ranking between jurisdictions.
• Readiness does not predict outcomes; it identifies preconditions.

PermitAssure perspective

PermitAssure uses this model to scope engagements. Where a department is early on process documentation, the first phase is structured intake and completeness checking against configured checklists — useful on its own and a prerequisite for anything further. Configured deterministic evaluation follows once requirements and inputs are stable.