Why does no one measure the IT infrastructure of real estate?

We know the energy label of practically every building in the Netherlands. We know how much gas flows through it, how the facade is insulated and which measures are needed to reach a higher class. That data is registered, accessible and part of policy. About the digital infrastructure of that same building, almost nothing is known. There is no registration, no obligation and no authority that keeps track of it.

That is remarkable, because that digital layer increasingly determines whether a building is usable for modern business activity. An office without redundant fiber, without capacity for cloud applications and without room for smart systems is physically fine, but functionally limited. Yet that limitation is recorded nowhere.

The question is not whether we would want this information. The question is why no one measures it. The Dutch national statistics office (CBS) registers the digital economy in detail, but the physical building layer on which that economy runs remains out of sight. In this article we ask those critical questions, without answering them cheaply.

Why does the CBS measure the digital economy but not the building layer?

The CBS maps out how many companies use the cloud, how fast data flows are growing and which sectors are digitizing. Those figures are valuable. But they concern usage, not the infrastructure that makes that usage possible. Where the data actually has to travel through, namely the building and its connections, remains unmeasured.

This is partly because digital infrastructure has long been seen as a service, something you purchase from a provider, rather than as a property of the real estate itself. As long as no one considers it a building characteristic, there is no reason to register it. Yet that picture is shifting. It increasingly turns out that a building should be understood not in square meters but in data capacity.

A second reason is that there was no recognized unit of measurement. Energy has kWh, insulation has the energy index. For digital building quality, a language everyone understands was missing. Without a shared unit, there is little to count statistically, and so the CBS does not count it.

What happens when you don't measure something

What is not measured disappears from policy, from valuations and from decision making. A property owner who invests in redundant connections has no recognized value for that on paper. A tenant looking for a building with sufficient capacity cannot look that property up anywhere. The entire market operates on information that does not exist.

Why doesn't the government require transparency about IT infrastructure?

With energy, the government did intervene. The energy label became mandatory, with a concrete economic and social goal. With digital infrastructure that does not happen, even though the economic interest is at least as large. A building that cannot handle digital growth slows down the companies inside it.

Partly this is a matter of timing. The government often acts only once a problem is visible and measurable. Digital deficiency in real estate rarely manifests as an acute disruption that makes the news. It shows up as quiet limitations: a company that cannot scale up, a move that turns out to be necessary, an investment that lands elsewhere. Those costs are real, but diffuse, and that makes it hard to organize policy urgency. Anyone following the discussion on IT-Labels and government policy sees that transparency is at the core of this.

We have mapped the insulation of every building, but not whether the company inside it can still work online tomorrow.

A second factor is responsibility. With digital infrastructure it is often unclear who is responsible for what: the owner, the tenant or the provider. That ambiguity makes an obligation legally complex. Yet that is no argument for doing nothing, because a measurement framework would precisely make those responsibilities clearer. The question of who is responsible for the IT infrastructure becomes simpler once the starting situation is established.

Why doesn't Europe have legislation on this yet?

Europe is not inactive on digital matters. There is regulation for cybersecurity, for data processing and for the energy performance of buildings. But all those frameworks touch on a building's physical digital readiness only tangentially. A building can comply with cyber rules and still lack sufficient connectivity to support modern applications.

The reason is that European regulation focuses on risks and on the internal market, not on the intrinsic quality of the built environment. Cybersecurity is about protection, energy performance about sustainability. The question of whether a building is digitally usable falls between those frameworks. The difference between those approaches is explained in our overview of how the IT-Label relates to ISO 27001.

In addition, Europe moves slowly on topics that vary per member state. Digital infrastructure is largely organized nationally, from fiber networks to building codes. A uniform European measurement framework requires coordination that does not yet exist. Meanwhile the need is growing, as the distinction between who measures digitally and who does not becomes sharper.

What does the lack of measurement cost the knowledge economy?

The Netherlands positions itself as a knowledge nation. Research, technology, financial services and the creative industry run on data and on the connections that let that data flow. If the buildings where that work takes place do not keep pace with digital growth, a creeping problem arises. Companies wanting to scale up run into the limits of their premises.

The danger is not dramatic, but gradual. A company that wants to run AI-driven processes needs capacity and reliability that much existing real estate does not offer. If that company does not find that capacity here, it looks elsewhere. The question of whether our buildings are ready for the AI revolution is therefore also a question about economic investment climate.

Without measurement, a country cannot steer. Policymakers do not know which regions are lagging, which sectors are at risk and where investments are most needed. Measuring is the precondition for policy, and that starts with making visible what is currently invisible.

Where the costs land

• With companies that cannot scale up within their current location.
• With property owners who invest without recognized added value in valuation.
• With tenants who only discover after completion that the digital foundation is not right.
• With the broader economy, which sees growth opportunities land elsewhere.

Which countries do see this?

There are countries that explicitly treat connectivity as infrastructure, equal to water, energy and roads. There, connections and digital readiness are more often included as a standard part of area development, which flows through into the requirements set for buildings.

The common characteristic of those frontrunners is that they see digital quality not as a side issue but as a location factor. That connects to the discussion of what the Netherlands can learn from countries that are further ahead, as elaborated in our piece on what the Netherlands can learn from the UK about AI infrastructure. Where connectivity counts as a public priority, the need to measure and classify it arises naturally.

The point is not that the Netherlands is lagging on all fronts. On network rollout the country is doing well. The point is that the translation to the individual building is missing. A country can have excellent fiber while it remains unclear, at a specific building, what actually comes in. That last stretch, from the street to the workplace, is exactly where the interplay between telecom and real estate becomes visible.

Starting to measure yourself, even without legislation

Waiting for legislation is a choice, not a necessity. A property owner does not have to wait for an obligation to make a building's digital quality visible. The IT-Label offers an independent classification methodology for this that describes the existing situation without passing judgment. A building with an IT3 READY classification shows something different than a building at another level, and that information is useful for buyers, tenants and appraisers.

The concrete next step is simple: have it determined where your property currently stands. Start with the explanation of how the IT-Label works and map out what is actually present. As long as the government, the CBS and Europe do not measure this layer, it is up to the market itself to make the invisible infrastructure visible. Whoever does this first has an advantage once measuring becomes the norm anyway.