The launch of “Transparent Construction” digital application for specialists of state architectural and construction control is another step toward digitalization of the industry. At the same time, this solution should also be viewed in a broader context — as a tool that changes approaches to the state oversight of activities of local self-government bodies in the field of construction.

Since the State Inspection of Architecture and Urban Development of Ukraine exercises oversight over the work of local state architectural and construction control bodies, digitalization of inspections at the state level inevitably affects the rules under which communities operate. The new application effectively sets the standard for what “proper фгвше” in the construction sector should look like.

The application transforms on-site inspections of facilities into a clearly regulated digital procedure. The inspector follows a step-by-step algorithm with no option to skip stages, records results using real-time photo and video materials, and all data is automatically transmitted to the Single State Electronic System in the Construction Sector. The inspection results acquire the status of digital documents, which reduces the risks of information loss or manipulation, increases the evidentiary value of decisions made, and enhances their publicity. Currently, the tool is applied to facilities of medium and major consequence classes — CC2 and CC3, including large-scale residential and commercial development.

The State Inspection of Architecture and Urban Development is the key user of the application, which oversees CC3 facilities, as well as CC2 facilities when the client is a public agency or the construction is financed from the state budget. In addition, the Inspection performs the function of state oversight of activities of local state architectural and construction control bodies. At the same time, local self-government bodies, through their structural units, remain responsible for ocerseeing CC1 facilities and a significant portion of CC2 facilities located within the respective communities. That is why digitalization of control at the state level directly influences the operating rules of local bodies, even if they are not the primary users of this tool.

As a matter of fact, the application establishes a new standard for what will be considered proper inspection: full recording of every step, traceability of the inspector’s actions, minimization of discretion, and reduction of the process to a clear procedure. It is according to this logic that state oversight of the activities of local architectural and construction control bodies will be carried out onward. The publicity of inspection results through the Single System means that any procedural deviations, incomplete documentation, or differing interpretations of norms become visible not only to supervisory authorities, but also to a wider range of stakeholders. For communities, this means a transition from situational proof of correctness to working within a documented digital logic.

Along with this, digital tools partially mitigate personal risks for officials, as decisions are increasingly based on algorithms and recorded data. At the same time, responsibility is gradually shifting from the individual inspector to the overall institutional capacity of the body including the quality of internal procedures, staff training, compliance with standards, and organization of unit work. For some communities, this very aspect may become a challenge, as lack of qualified specialists, overload of local oversight bodies, weak technical or digital infrastructure complicate adaptation to the new requirements.

It should also be noted that digital control at the inspection stage is not a universal solution to all problems in the industry. It does not cover the entire construction sector, does not replace high-quality design documentation, construction and designer’s supervision, nor does it substitute for risk management at the planning and project implementation stages. For local self-governments, this means that digital tools should be viewed as a framework that strengthens transparency and accountability, but does not remove responsibility for the quality of managerial decisions.

In terms of strategy, the launch of “Transparent Construction” signals the formation of a single digital oversight domain in the construction sector. The state sets standards for recording, evidentiary value, and transparency, while communities are gradually integrated into this system both as subjects of control and as objects of state oversight. Under such conditions, the role of local self-government bodies does not diminish, but becomes more formalized and demanding in terms of institutional capacity, which changes not only the tools of work, but also the very culture of responsibility in the construction sector.