Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current state of research on the integration of blockchain and building information modelling (BIM) in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry as a means of identifying gaps between the existing paradigm and practical applications for determining future research directions and improving the industry. The study aims to provide clear guidance on areas that need attention for further research and funding and to draw academic attention to factors beyond the technical dimension.
Design/methodology/approach
A mixed-method systematic review is used, considering multiple literature types and using a sociotechnical perspective-based framework that covers three dimensions (technic, process and context) and three research elements (why, what and how). Data are retrieved and analysed from the Web of Science and Scopus databases for the 2017–2023 period.
Findings
While blockchain has the potential to address security, traceability and transparency and complement the system by integrating supporting applications, significant gaps still exist between these potentials and widespread industry adoption. Current limitations and further research needs are identified, including designing fully integrated prototypes, empirical research to identify operational processes, testing and analysing operational-level models or applications and developing and applying a technology acceptance model for the integration paradigm. Previous research lacks contextual settings, real-world tests or empirical investigations and is primarily conceptual.
Originality/value
This paper provides a comprehensive, critical systematic review of the integration of blockchain with BIM in the construction industry, using a sociotechnical perspective-based framework which can be applied in future reviews. The study provides insight into the current state and future opportunities for policymakers and practitioners in the AECO industry to prepare for the transition in this disruptive paradigm. It also provides a phased plan along with a clear direction for the transition to more advanced applications.
Keywords
Citation
Yu, J., Zhong, H. and Bolpagni, M. (2024), "Integrating blockchain with building information modelling (BIM): a systematic review based on a sociotechnical system perspective", Construction Innovation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 280-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-04-2023-0082
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
1. Introduction
The architecture, engineering, construction and operation (AECO) industry is increasingly adopting new technologies and methodologies that will shape its future sustainable development. However, over the past few decades, the construction industry's productivity has consistently lagged behind other industries as manufacturing and finance. Moreover, the sector has been criticised for having difficulty in embracing digitisation, as it surpasses only agriculture, which is the least digitised (Rodrigo et al., 2020). Numerous studies have pointed out several interrelated factors that contribute to the failures and underperformance of the construction industry. These factors include poor communication and collaborative information sharing (Mitkus and Mitkus, 2014), lack of transparency and accountability (Prakash and Ambekar, 2020), payment problems and poor contract management (Li et al., 2019a).
Despite the slow progress of digitisation, it can be observed that the construction industry has been applying information and communications technology (ICT) to enhance the flow of information and collaboration on projects and connect its productivity and performance gap compared to other sectors. With the wave of Construction 4.0, digitalisation and automation have become relatively prevalent in the industry, involving building information modelling (BIM), the Internet of Things (IoT), augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), big data, artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, 3D printing and the application of modern methods of construction (Bolpagni et al., 2022; McNamara and Sepasgozar, 2021).
The digital revolution has facilitated the integration of the physical environment with digital ecosystems (Sepasgozar, 2021). BIM has been the foundation for the development of several technologies and methodologies that have been created throughout time to manage a range of jobs and activities during various construction and operating phases in the AECO industry (Wang et al., 2020a). As a revolutionary form of methodology, it outlines concepts and principles for information management as presented in the ISO 19650 series: BIM (ISO 19650-1, 2018). Therefore, BIM also includes interactive policy, working methods and processes for coordinating multiple participants and multidisciplinary teams in a collaborative manner, allowing the integration of information, data and management flow within the same ecosystem (Zheng et al., 2019a).
Considering the enormous potential and benefits of BIM, governments and institutions worldwide have been focusing on it, with several BIM standards and policies being developed (e.g. in the UK, Italy, Spain, Finland, Germany and Singapore). BIM has also become the most extensively analysed digital approach in various types of research. It can also provide the technological foundation as a “central intersection” that connects with various complementary technologies, alongside an essential foundation for green and low-carbon building (Li et al., 2012) and the circular economy, smart building and the digital twin (Wang et al., 2020a).
Nevertheless, the acceptance and penetration of BIM are thought to have remained slow (Ahmad et al., 2018). Apart from the challenges from process-based and people-based factors, various studies have identified the issues and challenges with the BIM methodology. These issues and challenges include interoperability, security, reliability and traceability of data in storage, exchange and revision processes (Aleksandrova et al., 2019; Kiu et al., 2020; Pradeep et al., 2021). Considerably, they are interfering with the collaboration and trust environment of the participants (Shelbourn et al., 2007).
The emergence of blockchain technology has piqued the interest of the AECO industry. Aste et al. (2017) described it as the fourth industrial revolution poised to disrupt the industry. A theme of blockchain application in the industry that is incredibly prominent is the integration of blockchain and BIM (Li et al., 2019a). Due to its decentralised nature of high security and immutability, it manifests the potential to address specific issues on data storage, security and sharing, thereby enhancing the aspects of privacy, transparency and trust (Lee et al., 2021). Therefore, blockchain is seen as having the potential to overcome some of BIM's inherent challenges and enhanced benefits; this potential is widely proposed for improving data security and transparency issues relating to information exchange and accountability in different BIM workflow scenarios throughout a project lifecycle, thereby creating an environment of trust and effective collaboration (Lamb, 2018; Plevris et al., 2022).
Due to the novelty of the technology, several growing and maturing research have been dispersed in this field, for example, integrating blockchain and BIM to improve data security (Lokshina et al., 2019) and information management (Lee et al., 2021) and facilitating smart contracts (Nawari and Ravindran, 2019a). The understanding of the link between BIM and blockchain can help the industry to investigate further areas of investment to solve current issues that BIM implementation is facing, accelerating adoption. Highlighting the gaps in existing research can help facilitate the potential identification of ways of improving integration while also suggesting future research directions. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a systematic literature review on the integration of blockchain and BIM.
However, the current reviews have primarily focused on blockchain in the entire AECO industry. Li et al. (2019a) and Plevris et al. (2022) performed a rigorous examination of blockchain applications in the construction sector, summarising several current application categories. Similarly, Scott et al. (2021) reviewed the usage of blockchain in the construction industry; Li and Kassem (2021) examined blockchain-enabled smart contracts in construction. These works, however, mainly concerned potential application scenarios, and they do not cover a more detailed discussion of options as well as models for BIM and blockchain integration that can benefit both academia and industry.
There is a very limited number of reviews specifically emphasising blockchain and BIM integration as found in various mainstream academic databases such as Web of Science and SciVerse Scopus. Although the title of Nawari and Ravindran's research (2019c) pertains to a review of the integration of blockchain and BIM, the said paper focuses on the description of blockchain and fails to mention the detailed content from the BIM side. In the same way, Tan et al. (2022) completed a review of BIM and blockchain; even though the paper discusses BIM and blockchain separately, the review of integration entirely emphasises the investigation of the potential of various application scenarios and overlooks the technical dimensions and the factors when implementing. Chung et al. (2022) examined the technical and application scenario dimensions but failed to investigate industry readiness or contextual factors.
In addition, Das et al. (2021) carried out a review that specifically concentrated on the usage of blockchain to enhance BIM security; however, this review only paid attention to the applicability of blockchain as a cybersecurity-enabling technology to BIM security, neglecting other applications scenarios and implementation processes. Similarly, reviews by Hijazi et al. (2021) and Nawari and Ravindran (2019b) focused only on data delivery and disaster recovery.
Furthermore, blockchain technology is a rapidly evolving field and although the studies contained the technical dimension, over time, many integrated solution designs and wider applications have developed in the years since the completion of these studies, such as some emerging models for the supply chain management (Hijazi et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022).
Overall, these reviews lack a more detailed discussion about the technical options for integration and the contextual factors, which makes it difficult to identify pertinent challenges and barriers. With increasing claims that blockchain is nothing more than a hyped technology, its actual usefulness in the construction industry is being questioned (Perera et al., 2020). Therefore, a theoretical perspective of sociotechnical systems is used in this paper. In addition, a review framework is constructed that more comprehensively integrates the three dimensions of process, technic and context, while also setting out the “Why”, “What” and “How” aspects under each of the three dimensions as a means of identifying the need for integration, application potential and the effort that is required to advance the field.
This study aims to analyse the current state of research on blockchain and BIM integration from a sociotechnical systems perspective and identify future research directions that can advance development and implementation. To achieve this, the study has established four research questions (RQs):
What is the current state of research and trends regarding BIM and blockchain integration?
What problem-solving or performance improvements can blockchain provide to BIM in terms of process, technical and contextual dimensions?
What solutions or applications have been proposed or implemented for this integration in terms of process, technical and contextual dimensions?
What are the gaps or challenges of existing research and what should the future directions be in terms of process, technical and contextual dimensions?
In the following section, this research reviews the background concept and the current state of research on BIM and blockchain, followed by rendering a theoretical lens and designing a research approach. A quantitative method applying bibliometrics and a qualitative review through the proposed framework was performed with the discussion of outcomes. Finally, this research provides a summary of findings and presentation of the conclusions discussing the innovative contribution as well as limitations.
2. Literature review
2.1 Background of building information modelling
BIM integrates multidimensional data from organisations, programmes and projects and can represent them in a parametric and visual form (Copeland and Bilec, 2020). Information models can contain information about buildings and infrastructure, including geometric descriptions (e.g. material, weight, and dimensions of the components) and alphanumeric (e.g. function, behaviour and price of the components) (Xue and Lu, 2020). Ye et al. (2018) indicated that by providing semantically rich and object-oriented digital building models for each process throughout a construction project's lifecycle, the efficiency of information management in a project could improve.
According to Rao (2006), information is probably the most important “building material”, while Winch (2012, p. 16) describes construction projects as a matter of information management. BIM-based processes are in line with the industry's collaborative nature (Ye et al., 2018) and are claimed to streamline various management processes within the industry (Babalola et al., 2021) and significantly improve the communication and relationships among the involved parties (Kähkönen and Rannisto, 2015). As Kifokeris and Koch (2020) have indicated, BIM has become an essential paradigm for integrated collaboration. From an organisational management perspective, Siountri et al. (2019), Woodhead et al. (2018) and Zhou et al. (2017) refer to BIM as a critical direction for the future of information management in the industry. They further note that BIM has resulted in various new business models, including “Buildings-as-a-Service”.
Moreover, various technologies such as IoT sensors and smart devices have been used with BIM to enhance data-driven asset management and monitor system operational performance (Lemeš and Lemeš, 2019; Pasini et al., 2016). In addition, during the design and construction phases, BIM-based processes apply a range of digital technologies, which have been extensively explored to facilitate process efficiency. These technologies consist of integrating laser scanning and photogrammetry, VR and AR, and wearables (Siountri et al., 2019; Volk et al., 2014; Yin et al., 2019). Furthermore, Charef and Emmitt (2021) have discussed applying BIM with assistive technologies to facilitate waste management in a circular economy, while Lee et al. (2021) focused on BIM with integrated sensors creating a digital twin.
2.2 Challenges to implementing building information modelling
Despite being praised as an end-all solution, Holzer (2011) identifies seven prevailing problems of BIM from a practical standpoint; the issues of technocentric and process change continue to impede practice today (Arrotéia et al., 2022). Jamal et al. (2019) argued that in addition to human-based challenges (e.g. learning curves and resistance to change), these problems arise from process challenges; for example, platforms in the BIM process are not effective in ensuring role-based access to information, and there is a disconnect at the data level at various stages of the lifecycle (Suliyanti and Sari, 2021). Tan et al. (2022) review summarised several weaknesses in the BIM process, including trust, asset ownership and data reliability issues. BIM implementation would benefit from unified BIM standards and libraries to improve data exchange and interoperability (Babalola et al., 2021), as well as a method and mechanism to allow trusted, transparent and traceable information handling as a fully collaborative and integrated approach (Dounas et al., 2019).
In addition, the transmission of information containers has raised the issue of data security. The conceptual principles of BIM platform security – confidentiality, integrity and availability – have been presented by Singh et al. (2011). Originating from three sources, data corruption, loss and manipulation are the three main risks to BIM workflow security. Boyes (2013) and Pradeep et al. (2021) have warned of threats from external sources, in which data theft and malicious attacks carried out by cybercriminals can represent various threats to data and are even sensitive physical building assets. Furthermore, Das et al. (2021) indicated that malicious or human errors from within the project might result in data leakage, misuse and loss of property, trust and reputation. Moreover, Nawari and Ravindran (2019b) detected system failures, indicating the risks of data corruption or leakage during transmission. As Pradeep et al. (2021) emphasised, third-party software or cloud providers that violate pertinent guidelines or use stored data for machine learning have raised privacy issues. Numerous studies have also examined the various legal and contractual issues associated with BIM applications. For example, Winfield has introduced Legal BIM all around the world and is the author of several articles on BIM legal issues, digitalisation and innovation in the construction industry and the author of the Society of Construction Law's award-winning article, “Building Information Modelling: The Legal Frontier-overcoming Legal and Contractual Obstacle” (Winfield, 2015; Winfield and Rock, 2018). Although more comprehensive guidelines have been continually defined, Turk and Klinc (2017) hold that it is challenging to rely on various legal tools from the paper world to resolve the issues in the digital environment.
2.3 Background of blockchain in the construction industry
In the context of the AECO industry, several researchers have reviewed the current blockchain applications and their potential application scenarios. For example, Hunhevicz and Hall (2020) suggested a decision framework for designing various blockchain applications in the industry. Relative to this, a taxonomic analysis has been conducted, and a technical framework has been developed by Yang et al. (2020). Specifically, the functionality enabled by several essential components of the blockchain is believed to offer irreplaceable value to the AECO industry.
Firstly, transfers are realised through a peer-to-peer network without a central server, where encrypted and authenticated data are chronologically stored in a decentralised ledger, with each node having a complete historical ledger (Dakhli et al., 2019). Direct payments between stakeholders can replace the transfer of funds through intermediaries such as banks, and smart contracts in a decentralised environment can be automatically enforced when certain conditions are met. This has resulted in blockchain and smart contracts being regarded as promising means for improving late payments and payment risks in the industry (Peters et al., 2019). Regarding the facilitation of reliable information sharing, blockchain is a decentralised database that can effectively break down “data island”, thereby improving the information flow and collaborative environment between stakeholders throughout a project lifecycle (Wu et al., 2022a).
In addition, data is stored in blocks, while each updated block includes the transaction data and timestamp of the previous block, hence producing a growing chain linked by a cryptographic hash (Kim et al., 2020). The consideration that transaction records may only be added to and not modified prevents malicious modifications and deletions (Pradeep et al., 2020). This secure, immutable and traceable property enables the achievement of data security and fraud prevention (Lee et al., 2021). For example, it ensures data privacy, reduces hacking opportunities and provides stable preservation of data that is generated from built assets (Parn and Edwards, 2019). In areas such as design, quality management and supply chain process management, blockchain provides more transparent evidence that it can improve issues, including intellectual property and liability ambiguity and has the potential to provide data evidence tracking throughout a project lifecycle (Zhong et al., 2023).
2.4 Current state of research on the integration of blockchain and building information modelling
A review of blockchain in the construction industry conducted by Li et al. (2019a) indicates that more focus relies on integrating BIM. Not surprisingly, BIM, which is considered the central junction of various emerging technologies, will pair up with blockchain to help unleash even more tremendous potential.
More specifically, existing research is in agreement that blockchain can improve several aspects of BIM workflow while also providing greater benefits throughout a project lifecycle. The data security features blockchain provides can improve the problems of data leakage, loss or attack on collaborative BIM platforms (Pradeep et al., 2020). The blockchain features of fraud prevention, authentication and increased trust in transaction data have been proposed for improving transparency issues and the accountability of information exchange in BIM (Ye et al., 2022). For example, during the design phase, blockchain enables the recording of modification history as a means of determining how ownership and responsibility for the model are divided and assigning the access rights of participants (Guo et al., 2022). When models are updated, the models of participants can also be automatically updated in real-time, which creates an environment of trust and facilitates effective collaborative design (Wang et al., 2022b). In the construction and operation phases, the integrated solutions of blockchain, smart contracts, BIM and other assistive technologies are widely proposed for quality accountability and tracking, improving the traceability of asset maintenance records and automated maintenance operations (Lee et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2022).
However, research outside the construction domain has further indicated potential limitations and security issues of blockchain technology. These issues and limitations include the inability to ensure full reliability and privacy of data authentication, the limitation of bandwidth and the lack of connectivity in platform and application designs (Hughes et al., 2019). Although relevant research is scarce from built environments, there are still some existing states to the limitations of such research. For instance, the integration of blockchain with BIM has been criticised by Ghaffarianhoseini et al. (2017), claiming that blockchain is presently only suitable as a tool for automated document and transaction data processing.
The commercial software BIMCHAIN is considered to increase trust in BIM data exchange through blockchain and was evaluated by Pradeep et al. (2020). However, the legal validity of the software functionality has not yet been tested, which is a key issue in the implementation of blockchain and BIM integration, i.e. the lack of legal precedents and regulations (Winfield, 2018). The level of digitisation of the industry and its acceptance of change is also seen as implementation barriers. Due to the slow digitisation progress in the AECO industry, the potential benefits of blockchain require a more interconnected and networked approach for collaborative BIM work (Li et al., 2019a).
Li et al. (2019a) also indicated that much of the work currently visible in this field is focused on considering the technical dimension. As identified by Plevris et al. (2022) as a major barrier to BIM implementation, technocentrism has resulted in viewing BIM as a tool rather than considering process and people factors. Pradeep et al. (2021) further discussed that the human aspect should be more fundamental than the technical element and that process-related changes and macro-environmental support should also be considered. As demonstrated by the arduous road to BIM adoption, the construction industry has been very conservative in adopting new technologies (Sheng et al., 2020); indeed, it is not difficult to surmise that integrating blockchain with BIM can be even more daunting. Research on how these various aspects are balanced can help drive the field from conceptual to practical application. Hence, a theoretical lens is introduced in the Section 3.1 to review the development and the limitations of the current research from an integrated perspective.
3. Research method
Figure 1 summarises the framework and the different layers of this study, which will be explained in this section.
3.1 Theoretical lenses of research
The sociotechnical systems theory was initially developed by Trist and Bamforth (1951), stressing the connection between technology and society in the industry. For the digital system of blockchain and BIM integration, particular attention must be paid to meeting the needs for application in the workflow and the contextual background of the industry. Thus, in this research, three dimensions of consideration from the theory of sociotechnical systems are presented: process, technic and context.
The process dimension considers the application of technology in various scenarios and at each lifecycle stage, examining the improvement or performance optimisation of the proposed integration on the workflow. The literature will be categorised and mapped to different phases or application scenarios within the project lifecycle. Different applications of the proposed integrations in the study and their development maturity will be investigated. In addition, challenges relating to integration in process applications will be identified so future directions for research in process applications could be suggested that transition to more advanced applications or facilitate industry implementations.
The technical dimension covers the technical environment and infrastructure, examining the inherent technical shortcomings in BIM that blockchain will address, in addition to the different technical options and their difficulties during the integration process. The technical dimension will also investigate how the technical drawbacks of blockchain can be mitigated in the integration paradigm by identifying solutions and the technical foundation that is required on the BIM side to meet blockchain accessions.
The contextual dimension includes the acceptance and adoption of technology by individuals and organisations, as well as pertinent rules and regulations. The ultimate aim of this integration is the improvement of underperformance in the BIM and the AECO industries. Therefore, the contribution blockchain will make to the acceptance and penetration of BIM will be identified first. Industry readiness for the adoption of this integration will also be reviewed, and any change-related challenges, regulations and legislative readiness will be identified as a means of determining the research efforts that are required to facilitate implementation.
Overall, this research emphasises that the three characteristics are not arranged hierarchically but are rather side-by-side and that the ideal scenario is for all of these aspects to grow in a balanced manner.
3.2 Research design
Once the theoretical lenses used for the study were identified, the research methodology was developed.
This study follows a pragmatic mindset. Its aim is analysing the current state of research and identifying future research directions that can advance development and implementation. Therefore, the practical application value of this study is emphasised. In addition, the study intends to gain in-depth and comprehensive insight, and the theoretical lenses that are used include multiple dimensions where complex relationships must be addressed. A flexible combination of multiple methods will compensate for the shortcomings of a single method, enabling more reliable results to be obtained and allowing the research questions to be effectively addressed.
A mixed-method systematic literature review is considered to be the best option that can meet the aim of this study. This method obtains and analyses both quantitative and qualitative data in a single evaluation. It also compensates for the defects of using one method alone, thus ensuring the validity and reliability of the outcomes by complementing them with an in-depth and comprehensive review (Liu et al., 2020). This allows the study to identify themes, trends and gaps more effectively (Sajovic et al., 2018).
During the data collection process, relevant literature must be located, filtered, assessed and analysed through a systematic and structured set of criteria to ensure the scientific validity and rigour of the study (Obrecht et al., 2020). This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedure to conduct document identification, screening and inclusion; the procedure is the recognised standard for reporting evidence in systematic reviews (PRISMA, 2020).
Figure 2 summarises this study's procedural sequence. The data used for analysis were obtained by searching from two databases: the Web of Science (WoS) and SciVerse Scopus (Scopus). These two commonly used databases are thought to capture a wide variety of target search words and provide reliable search results (Charef et al., 2018). Based on the research questions, the following word string was used in the advanced search through Scopus: “TITLE-ABS-KEY (blockchain OR “smart contract*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“building information model*” OR “building information management”)”; eventually, 139 papers were retrieved for the 2017–2023 period. In the Web of Science Core Collection, the following word string was applied: “TOPIC = (blockchain OR “smart contract*”) AND TOPIC = (“building information model*” OR “building information management”)”; eventually, 89 papers were retrieved for the 2017–2023 period. No time or language restrictions have been set when searching. Search results were updated to early March 2023.
Book chapters, conference proceedings and unpublished research were not prohibited document categories because this would provide insight into the new technologies and identify the differences or gaps in traditional academic literature and other sources of information (Kasten, 2020). It is also worth discussing that search results from all fields are kept owing to the multidisciplinary nature of the research. Identical results between the two databases (84 articles), eventually yielding 144 results for quantitative review.
The relevancy of the search results was then determined based on each paper's title and abstract; from the “screening” process, 27 of the results were excluded because they were primarily concerned with the engineering or manufacturing field and did not include any BIM-related topic. The remaining 117 articles were then examined for full text during the “eligibility” stage, where 38 articles were excluded because they did not include any BIM-related topic, or blockchain was only seen as a minor variable. Therefore, 79 articles were eventually selected for qualitative review.
During the data analysis process, 144 results were used for quantitative analysis and bibliometric analysis was conducted as a means of addressing RQ1. Using scientific mapping algorithms and techniques to visualise the visible aspects of similarities and differences in compiled data, the knowledge structure, research trends and current research progress on the combination of BIM and blockchain can be determined (Babalola et al., 2021). Specifically, VOSviewer Version 1.6.16 was selected as the scientific mapping tool in this paper.
In the qualitative analysis process, the 79 articles that resulted from the data screening were used for content analysis. To answer RQ1–RQ3, the theoretical lens established was further developed as a framework for the qualitative analysis, with three research aspects set up under each of the three dimensions. This will be discussed within each of the three dimensions.
The three aspects are as follows:
The “Why” aspect: the need for integration and the benefits this provides. Analysing this aspect will answer RQ2.
The “What” aspect: integration applications and the level of adoption of current research. Analysing this aspect will answer RQ3.
The “How” aspect: the issues that integration must address to progress or be wider implemented within the industry. Analysing this aspect will answer RQ4.
In this way, this study constructed a framework as a common language for qualitative coding, which is visually explained in the table that is presented in the lower right part of Figure 1. A thorough content review of 79 articles was performed based on this pre-established framework, and all authors engaged in group discussions until they reached a consensus. Based on the affinity of each article to the three dimensions (process, technic, context), the research team categorised articles and mapped them to the relevant dimension. During this process, some articles were found to cover more than one dimension and were mapped to all the relevant dimensions. The articles from each of the three dimensions were then analysed and discussed in terms of the three aspects (why, what, how).
4. Results
4.1 Quantitative phase
Keyword co-occurrence analysis can explore the research hotspots in the field and predict the research trends and frontiers (Zhao, 2017). The following criteria were established in VOSviewer: the co-occurrence threshold was set to at least seven times; the synonyms were merged, and the irrelevant keywords were deselected. Finally, 19 keywords were considered the most meaningful and visualised as nodes, with 113 links and four clusters.
Through network visualisation (Figure 3), keywords with close affinity were grouped into the same cluster. “Blockchain”, “BIM” and “architectural design” were centrally located and had a high affinity, categorised as the red cluster, with associated keywords “IoT”, “supply chain” and “sustainability”. This most active cluster reflects the current research focusing on these application aspects of blockchain and BIM integration and confirms the findings in Section 2 that the development of BIM is in conjunction with IoT in the supply chain and sustainability field, as well as the challenges in the design process.
The green cluster contains the terms associated with information exchange, implying that the research emphasises the role of blockchain in improving the “data and information flow” aspect of BIM. The blue cluster relates to the management of the processes in projects and stresses the role of blockchain in improving the “management flow” aspect of BIM. The yellow cluster relates to blockchain architecture and functionality, focusing on the technical aspects of integrating blockchain and BIM.
Figure 4 presents the distribution of research hotspots in terms of chronology. The research trend has gradually evolved from the management and storage of design and information in various projects to the architecture of blockchain and the application of smart contracts, while the latest research has transitioned toward automation, supply chain and sustainability aspects. Arguably, research in the field has been improving in terms of dimensionality and depth, translating from initial exploratory studies like blockchain improving information exchange to the architectural aspects of blockchain and expanding to more novel and broader application dimensions.
An overall analysis reveals that, despite the little amount of research, the field is in a constant state of development and moving towards mature applications. Combining the time series of reviewed articles, the first two studies in this domain were from 2017 – the conference paper of Turk and Klinc (2017) and the article of Mason (2017). The year 2017 was deemed the year of the blockchain (Amaludin and Taharin, 2018), and both papers meant that the “tipping” of blockchain technology had brought the construction industry into focus. Since 2019, there has been an explosion of growth; it is not difficult to surmise that as blockchain technology has entered a period of proliferation, alongside the continued maturation of BIM platforms and peripheral tools, and standards, in-depth research in this field has been facilitated.
In addition, most of the outermost nodes are associated with functional application areas and are mostly relatively new research. In contrast, keywords related to data exchange and information management primarily focus on the middle layer, emphasising addressing some shortcomings from the security aspects of BIM through integration. It can be surmised that research on the integration concepts and technical architectures has been recognised; impliedly, as research on the need and feasibility of integrating blockchain and BIM matures, the technical barriers are gradually being addressed, and this technology base enables emerging research to turn its focus to broader application scenarios.
4.2 Qualitative phase
The qualitative review reveals the consideration of the three different dimensions in the literature. Appendix 1 summarises the central arguments of the reviewed articles and the dimension(s) they cover. Some articles covered multiple dimensions; however, much of the existing research was technical (with a focus on problem-solving) and either simplified or avoided the discussion of organisational, human and macro contexts.
Figure 5 visualises the current research hotspots based on the number of articles in the three different dimensions in Appendix 1. The figure shows the unbalanced state of the three dimensions (some of the reviewed articles may cover multiple dimensions). The process and technical dimensions are discussed more frequently (72 articles and 70 articles), while the contextual dimension is minimal (21 articles). Most of the conference papers proposed technical dimensions and lacked validated models. Some of the articles used real-world examples to validate the technical models, and only a few focused on the attitudes of practitioners.
In this section, the “Why”, “What” and “How” aspects of each of the three dimensions are determined and discussed, with the suggested future research directions.
4.2.1 Process dimension.
The process dimension considers the application of technology in different scenarios and each lifecycle stage.
4.2.1.1 The “why” aspect.
The literature review section has identified the challenges of BIM and the potential for blockchain applications in the AECO industry; this section focuses on how the potential of blockchain is matched to address the challenges of BIM. Firstly, the integration focuses on the lack of transparency, traceability and immutability in data transactions and information-sharing processes of BIM. Thus, Turk and Klinc (2017) suggested the role of blockchain in document management and protection. In addition, reliable information sharing can help improve adversarial practices in the industry. Calvetti et al. (2020) discussed that the emergence of blockchain would transform emotion-based trust into a system-based one. Pradeep et al. (2020) contended that new processes of competition and innovation could ultimately emerge and improved collaborative processes would terminate hostile attitudes.
For payment issues in the BIM process, this integration would reduce manipulation or human errors and intermediary costs (Siountri et al., 2020), as well as the transaction longevity challenge of relatively long-term contracts (Li et al., 2019a). Further, the emergence of cryptocurrencies such as #AECoin (a cryptocurrency coin created explicitly for design and construction transactions) might impact the construction industry's future payments (Nawari, 2020).
4.2.1.2 The “what” aspect.
Existing research has proposed various applications of the integration paradigm in various lifecycle stages or scenarios. Appendix 2 categorises various literature into different stages or scenarios.
From a general perspective, the paradigm of integrating blockchain and BIM is applied to improve the information model and document management and assign access to information retrieval by the project participants and external observers through smart contracts (Guo et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b). In this manner, governance processes become streamlined (Dounas et al., 2021); moreover, numerous intermediaries can be removed as greater control and transparency are provided to the client (Darabseh and Martins, 2020). Therefore, Yang et al. (2020) indicated that this integration is especially suitable for public projects. Li et al. (2019a) and Shojaei et al. (2019) speculated that this would establish leaner procurement systems and contractual arrangements; specifically, for the recent growth in demand for the integrated project delivery method, Elghaish et al. (2020) designed an automated payment system to handle shared risks or rewards and incentivise value maximisation.
By always including BIM information within each lifecycle phase and with the blockchain providing security, the vision of various application areas can be facilitated, for example, digital twin (Lee et al., 2021), sustainable coordination (Liu et al., 2019), waste management (Pellegrini et al., 2020) and off-site prefabricated supply chain (Li et al., 2022; Li et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2020b; Wu et al., 2022b).
Specifically, several frameworks and models have been proposed to improve the design process. Although these approaches to integration vary, they are all committed to improving the tracking of the design changes and identifying responsibility (Dounas et al., 2021; Tao et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2019a), thus ensuring the consistency of models and the notification of drawing updates (Pradeep et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022b). The creation of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs – unique cryptographic tokens that exist on a blockchain and cannot be replicated) using blockchain technology was suggested by Casillo et al. (2022) to address the issues of authentication and copyright management of object libraries. Besides, Pradeep et al. (2019) investigated a commercialised application, BIMCHAIN, an integrated public blockchain-based solution that creates digital proofs for different transaction scenarios in the BIM workflow, thus attempting to address these challenges in the design process.
For the construction phase, Ye et al. (2018) proposed a Cup-of-Water theory that integrated BIM, IoT and blockchain: real-time data from the IoT sensors were provided to the BIM model, while blockchain was applied to enhance information reliability. Some frameworks could support real-time construction event management or automatically verify the compliance of real progress and the BIM plan in conjunction with the construction site data (Lee et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021b; Zheng et al., 2019a). Moreover, Yang et al. (2020) investigated a real-world project application in which certified work status data could trigger automatic payments using a smart contract.
In the post-construction phase, the project information model can be used as a basis for facilities management; in this phase, blockchain is proposed to provide security for sensor data and operations and maintenance (O&M) log files (Pradeep et al., 2019) and facilitate the assessment of construction performance (Liu et al., 2021), real estate transactions (Ganter and Lützkendorf, 2019) and demolition of buildings (Suliyanti and Sari, 2021). However, operational-level models or applications in this phase have not been seen in the literature.
4.2.1.3 The “how” aspect.
From the review of the process dimensions, BIM arguably provides the information and records of assets and components, while blockchain provides a secure platform for all parties to meet the storage, access, and execution needs; therefore, the two are considered complementary. Their integration can potentially address the fragmented and inadequate accountability in the construction industry. At the same time, the IoT provides the prerequisites for the correctness of data, which, combined with complementary technologies like big data and AI, can drive digital transformation. A BIM and blockchain-based digital ecosystem can be generated in the future, and conventional business processes are highly likely to be disrupted.
On the other hand, process barriers that have been identified thus far may arise from the following: the workload of smart contract coding (Elghaish et al., 2020), the lack of a relatively collaborative structure of the contract (McNamara and Sepasgozar, 2021) and the need for member collaboration to establish the standards and identify who pays the premiums arising from the adoption (Ganter and Lützkendorf, 2019; Kiu et al., 2020).
Besides tackling the known barriers highlighted above, the review result of research trends suggests some obvious future research challenges. The current scope of research covers a vast range of applications across the lifecycle, particularly in the design and construction phases, with the emergence of commercial applications like BIMCHAIN and the #AECoin cryptocurrency. However, the granularity of research into various niche areas has led to fragmented applications and inadequate holistic solutions; besides, most research is limited to conceptual frameworks or theoretical models (Dounas et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2019a). Despite a limited validation of effectiveness, well-controlled simulation environments have been limited due to a lack of empirical data. Examples may involve accuracy in actual data transactions and the applicability to non-critical transactions, as well as real-world cost-benefit analysis. As a result, even for practical applications, functionality and processes may not be generalisable to various project environments.
To improve the above-mentioned limitations of current research and overcome the challenges with feasible steps, recommendations for future research directions are offered for the process dimension to aid the industry in taking full advantage of this integration. Future research on the process dimension can consider the following:
designing fully integrated prototypes (horizontal expansion) or incorporating more functionality (vertical extensions) to the existing frameworks;
the adaptability and suitability of the integration paradigm to various project types and procurement methods; and
empirical research to identify the operational processes necessary to accommodate the blockchain and its influence or benefits to the organisation.
4.2.2 Technical dimension.
The technical dimension concerns the technical environment and infrastructure.
4.2.2.1 The “why” aspect.
BIM is the basis for digitising the entire lifecycle of an asset and is a prerequisite for linking technologies such as IoT and blockchain. However, as discussed in Section 2, security challenges are currently associated with sharing and storing data in a common data environment (CDE). Nawari and Ravindran (2019c) argued that blockchains and smart contracts allow for notarising and authorising information and access, thus guaranteeing security and providing “evidence of trust” amongst the stakeholders. However, the integration process likewise faces several technical hurdles. The most fundamental concern is that blockchains are not designed to store and share massive amounts of data in real time (Bukunova and Bukunov, 2019); Xue and Lu (2020) stressed the challenge of information redundancy caused by frequent changes in information models. It considers the choice of type of blockchain and faces “the blockchain trilemma”, as none of the various types can simultaneously and perfectly satisfy the properties of decentralisation, scalability and security (Lee et al., 2021).
4.2.2.2 The “what” aspect.
Regarding selecting the blockchain type to integrate with BIM, this paper found that private blockchains are proposed more; the hyperledger fabric (HLF) platform is extensively used, such as in a real-world project investigated by Chong and Diamantopoulos (2020). Its permitted architecture benefits data privacy protection and unlimited nodes (Sheng et al., 2020; Suliyanti and Sari, 2021); however, as there are only a few trusted nodes, it lacks security (Lee et al., 2021). A public blockchain with more security is also considered in some relevant literature; Pradeep et al. (2020) indicated that a commercialised application, BIMCHAIN, has been using the public blockchain's Ethereum platform. However, despite supporting the fully decentralised BIM solution, public blockchain has been facing issues of data privacy and expensive storage (Dounas et al., 2020).
Furthermore, considering the limited storage capacity of blockchain, Li et al. (2021a) proposed that the information model, especially the geometrical representation, should be compressed and stored in the blockchain; in this way, it can also support the migration of geometrical representations to various mobile terminals. Cloud databases are also used by some frameworks (Lokshina et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2019a); however, off-chain databases may face challenges in terms of access to information by unauthorised users (Pradeep et al., 2020). Zheng et al. (2019b) then designed an access control model to handle roles and permissions securely. Besides, interplanetary file system (IPFS) technology, as a peer-to-peer distributed file system arrangement, is considered to be a subsidised technology for blockchain for storing and distributing large files; thus, as a more secure off-chain storage solution, it has been used widely in various integration frameworks (Dounas et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022; Hamledari and Fischer, 2021; Pradeep et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022b). These frameworks store key data in IPFS, with their changes and hashes being stored on the chain.
The critical element in the integration process is interoperability, which must be supported by an Application Programming Interface (API) to access and use data (Fitriawijaya and Hsin-Hsuan, 2019). Meanwhile, the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) format (e.g. ifcXML) plays an essential function in exporting data for storage, inspection or translation. It can be converted to the scripting language used by the blockchain platform (e.g. Java or Go, used by HLF) (Nawari, 2020). However, the adoption of the IFC schema in commercial tools should be improved to facilitate interoperability (Xue and Lu, 2020).
4.2.2.3 The “how” aspect.
The review of the technical dimension has found the capacity of blockchain technology to complement BIM, thus compensating for certain deficiencies, including lack of security and traceability of data in BIM, and aiding the industry in transitioning towards deeper collaboration in BIM. However, the application of this integration is still in an early stage, and there are still technical barriers that need to be addressed.
For blockchain technology, it is still necessary to investigate better solutions to the blockchain trilemma: maximising security and decentralisation within the constraints of scalability. While existing research has proposed various solutions, including reducing redundancy and off-chain storage, these solutions involve exporting models and exchanging data formats (Cocco et al., 2022; Xue and Lu, 2020; Zheng et al., 2019a). However, none of the literature has validated the accuracy of the information model when recovering the IFC in a high level of detail or complex projects.
Ultimately, confidence in this integrated system comes from the future technology maturation phase, and complete development still requires much work. With the expansion of digitisation, such challenges may be temporary; the recent Ether merger, for instance, offers new opportunities. The identified technical obstacles may come from: the accurate coding of smart contracts (Elghaish et al., 2020), the blockchain immutability making it challenging to revise or withdraw erroneous data (Pradeep et al., 2019), the inability to guarantee complete security (e.g. 51% attacks or key leaks) (Darabseh and Martins, 2020) and “blockchain trilemma” (Lee et al., 2021).
While waiting for blockchain technology to mature, emphasis should be placed on improving some of the shortcomings identified in the current research trends. Firstly, architectural models designed and run-in sandboxes or web pages cannot fully simulate performance, scalability and compatibility in a complete network or real projects (Kasten, 2020; Pradeep et al., 2021). The proprietary costs of blockchain implementation may further dissuade some businesses, yet no apparent concerns had been identified in the review. Moreover, human involvement in automated processes is perhaps more efficient; examples are the judgement of force majeure clauses in contracts or the quick determination of defects in building/infrastructure inspections by experienced staff rather than deploying several expensive sensors (Li et al., 2019b; Mason, 2017).
Therefore, short-term research can consider the following directions:
optimising the existing solutions and testing the system in more diverse projects;
conducting comparative studies to investigate all options thoroughly (e.g. choice of platform and storage methods); and
investigating the most suitable integration options for various project types.
4.2.3 Contextual dimension.
The contextual dimension includes the acceptance and adoption of technology by individuals and organisations, as well as pertinent rules and regulations.
4.2.3.1 The “why” aspect.
The legal and contextual aspects are provided in this section; although only a few studies have considered this aspect, it is nonetheless essential in facilitating adoption in the industry. Contractual and legal issues are significant obstacles when implementing BIM; disputes and litigation are often complicated to determine causation and responsible parties. Due to these perceived legal risks, flexible, loose, and vague contracts act as “the rules of engagement” (McNamara and Sepasgozar, 2020). The integration of blockchain has been claimed to provide digital evidence; for instance, BIMCHAIN functions as a tool for resolving legal issues (Darabseh and Martins, 2020). Apart from mitigating the cost of network and trust, the values created by reliable information become clearer in co-innovation and disintermediation (Kifokeris and Koch, 2020).
4.2.3.2 The “what” aspect.
The conservative attitude of the industry may generate scepticism and fear regarding the use of unknown technologies. Aside from time and cost considerations associated with process change and adaptation (McNamara and Sepasgozar, 2020), the interviews conducted by Chong and Diamantopoulos (2020) suggested that companies were more concerned about being deprived of bargaining power and declining profits. McNamara and Sepasgozar's review (2021), based on the technology acceptance model (TAM), suggested that apart from enhancing the system's usefulness and proving measurable value to the industry, people's trust also seemed to depend on the realisation of the business case.
Meanwhile, Yang et al. (2020) mentioned that the construction industry's limited understanding, knowledge, experience and lack of personnel skills had produced barriers and have faced various learning curve challenges. For instance, generating and managing blockchain keys can be foreign to the construction industry. With the proliferation of digital technologies amidst Construction 4.0, cross-company collaboration, open innovation, learning culture and professional standards for personnel training are urgently necessary (Hargaden et al., 2019).
The disruptive impact on various business models should also be considered. The shift from cognitive to systemic trust signifies a change in business relationships (Aleksandrova et al., 2019); automated decision-making processes may replace experience-based managers with smart contract mediators causing flatter organisational structures (Darabseh and Martins, 2020). Financing methods and cash flow management can also be revolutionised; some conventional intermediaries (e.g. main contractors) may observe their profitability decline or die out (Li et al., 2019a). Kifokeris and Koch (2020) contended that a successful adoption requires considering relatively long-term strategic objectives and overcoming legacy issues. Prakash and Ambekar (2020) then proposed a route that began with identifying suitable use cases and precedent projects, then designing and preparing an implementation strategy and eventually expanding into an industry-wide level.
What is significant is for governments to ensure that regulations and legislations are in place. Legal issues are currently remaining an element that hinders blockchain and smart contracts (Ye et al., 2020). Prakash and Ambekar's interview (2020) with some practitioners suggested that the flexibility of traditional contracts is still vital in some cases. On the other hand, in Sonmez et al.'s survey (2022) on the payment management system they designed, construction practitioners pointed out the lack of legal as well as accounting infrastructure to implement it. Furthermore, Pradeep et al. (2020) discussed that the legal environment for smart contracts in the construction industry had not been experimented with, that the proofs claimed by BIMCHAIN are not acceptable in court, and that the automated processes necessitate legally recognised entities to be held accountable (McNamara and Sepasgozar, 2021).
4.2.3.3 The “how” aspect.
The review of the contextual dimension revealed a lack of contextual readiness for integration. Discussion regarding this dimension was also minimal, with most of the results coming from interviews with practitioners. This might be related to the lack of adoption within the industry, considering the immaturity of existing applications and thus unable to determine the adaptations and attitudes of the participants during implementation (Li and Kassem, 2019; McNamara and Sepasgozar, 2020; Prakash and Ambekar, 2020; Sonmez et al., 2022). Furthermore, the sample size of the studies based on a phenomenological approach might be insufficient to reflect the truth (Prakash and Ambekar, 2020).
The lack of a behavioural science perspective yields an imbalance between theoretical foundations and actual implementations. Concept development may lack the consideration of the problems that must be resolved in practice; more seriously, no advanced system can be deployed without considering the implementation's benefits and value creation. For instance, some proposed automatic payment frameworks mainly depend on providing cash upfront for allowing subsequent automatic payment or requiring contractors to provide detailed pricing information during bidding (Sonmez et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2020). These frameworks may cause concern for clients and contractors due to impaired cash flow and information privacy. Indeed, consideration for the user of the technology is a prerequisite in any application.
Additionally, there is a lack of quantifiable investigation into the claimed productivity and efficiency gains; in this case, the required input and preparation of the organisations and how the model must be integrated into the business processes are not observed in the review. Practitioners and policymakers cannot gain insight into the paradigm from existing literature; considering a lack of insight into the “value delivered” and the “conditions required”, this uncertainty further hinders the implementation in the industry (McNamara and Sepasgozar, 2020). Therefore, this paper argues that some operational-level applications must be tested in broader industry scenarios, focusing on capturing the dynamic changes throughout the processes, including participant attitudes and actions. It will help analyse the applicability and identify any unforeseen event or unconsidered issue to guide future research and relevant regulatory initiatives.
Therefore, contextual barriers in the short term may emerge from industry acceptance and regulatory uncertainties, while future challenges may arise from a lack of experience and governance. Application scenarios are hindered at this stage until the legal issues are clarified and the pertinent standards and regulations are in place. This is consistent with the findings of the structured interviews conducted by Papadonikolaki et al. (2022) on the blockchain innovation ecosystem in the construction industry, which found that policymakers need to encourage open innovation and the adoption of this technology through rules, regulations and demonstration projects. Future research on this dimension can consider the following:
developing and applying a TAM for the integration paradigm and mapping out process roadmaps for various cases;
investigating feedback from various stakeholders and experts' perceptions of existing frameworks; and
gesting and analysing the operational-level models or applications in extensive industry scenarios.
5. Discussion
The findings from the bibliometric analysis in the quantitative section answered RQ1. Through keyword co-occurrence analysis, this paper reveals that the current state of research is primarily focused on the application areas of blockchain and BIM integration, with great attention to architectural design, IoT, supply chain and sustainability. In terms of dynamic trends, since 2017, when blockchain has attracted substantial attention in a number of industries, research in the field has placed great emphasis on the concept of integrating this technology with BIM. Early investigations tended to focus more on aspects related to data exchange and information management, with an emphasis on the application to BIM security; as such, early research concentrated on the most obvious features of blockchain, notably security and fraud prevention features. After 2019, as blockchain technology flourishes and the BIM side continues to mature, the field gradually shifts to more in-depth research. This includes research on blockchain architecture and the usage of smart contracts, which consequently triggers research into broader areas such as automation, supply chain and sustainability. This indicates that the technical basis is being progressively refined, allowing for exploring a wider range of application scenarios. Coupled with the cost reductions and network performance improvements brought on by the Ethereum (ETH) merging in 2023, as well as the broader adoption prospects implied by scalability upgrades (Ethereum.org, 2023), the research trend is expected to experience significant growth.
As a result, the field is transitioning from early concepts to mature applications. In other words, early research has pointed out that blockchain can solve problems, and early ideas are currently being tested and developed to implement conceptual frameworks and technical architectures for a variety of application scenarios. As blockchain technologies proliferate and are updated, it is expected that the research on architecture will advance, which will, in turn, propel the maturation of existing models and explore a wider range of application scenarios. The field will therefore evolve towards maturity, diversification and industrialisation.
The content analysis in the qualitative section indicated that the process and technical dimensions were discussed more frequently in the three dimensions; only a few articles were concerned with the contextual dimension and investigated the attitudes of practitioners. The study answered RQ2–RQ4 by further discussing the “Why”, “What” and “How” aspects within the three dimensions.
The discussion of the “Why” aspects in the three dimensions addressed RQ2. Blockchain can address the process challenges of BIM by improving transparency, traceability and immutability of data transactions and information sharing, lowering intermediary costs, facilitating more effective project collaboration and management and even driving future changes in payment methods in the industry. In the technical dimension, while blockchain plays a significant technical role in enhancing information sharing and storage security, more advanced industrial applications still need to make trade-offs between decentralisation, scalability and security. In the contextual dimension, blockchain has the potential to provide digital evidence for the resolution of contractual and legal issues, providing choices for fostering an environment of trust and facilitating BIM penetration. However, there are still barriers potentially preventing blockchain adoption in the AECO industry. The benefits need to be realised through enhanced policy support and regulatory development, and increased integration with existing legal frameworks. Therefore, this study points out that these potentials and benefits of integration require a thorough comprehension of technical limitations as well as attention to synergies with contextual factors including laws and regulations and organisational culture.
The discussion of the “What” aspects in the three dimensions addresses RQ3. Existing research has put forward a range of applications that cover the entire lifecycle from the start to the post-construction phase for the purpose of more efficient information management processes and collaboration processes, and to optimise collaboration between participants. Despite the fact that some of the solutions are limited to conceptual frameworks, there are already commercialised applications such as BIMCHAIN for improving the design process and several applications that have been implemented in real-world projects for automated payments. In the technical dimension, private blockchains are more common when integrated with BIM, with Hyperledger Fabric being the most widely used platform in the existing research. For the purpose of addressing the challenges of data privacy and storage costs, many integration frameworks have adopted IPFS. Regardless of the type of blockchain used for integration, there is consensus in existing research on the significance of interoperability: the necessity of API support and improved IFC schema adoption in commercial tools. The conservative attitude of the industry was evident through an examination of the contextual dimensions, which meant that the factors of system viability and influence on business models should become key considerations. In addition, the study found that policy support proposals and regulatory development are not yet in place. In conjunction with the quantitative section, which found that the field is in the transition from initial development to mature adoption, it is crucial at this stage to focus on the key role that organisations, individuals and governments play in facilitating integration to ensure large-scale adoption of this integration.
The discussion of the “How” aspects in the three dimensions addresses RQ4. This study makes the argument that one of the noticeable gaps in the field is the neglect of the contextual dimension, which might result in an imbalance between the theoretical underpinnings and practical implementation. Some of the articles based on interviews with practitioners highlighted that the industry is not sufficiently prepared for integration; these interviews also failed to take a behavioural science perspective into account. Future studies should pay more attention to the development and application of TAM, as well as feedback from various stakeholders. On the other hand, due to the immaturity of existing models, as well as their limited ability to fully simulate real-world situations to demonstrate the full value of the integration, these models may make it less practical to conduct research on contextual dimensions. Hence, process and technical barriers must be addressed. Despite the complementary nature of BIM and blockchain, the current technology integration is still in its development, and the blockchain trilemma still requires the testing of different solutions; technological developments and changes in the industry environment may change the current findings. In addition, process application challenges such as the complexity of smart contract coding, the absence of collaborative contract structures and additional costs still exist. Therefore, the need for future research to place emphasis on the design of fully integrated prototypes, the adaptability and practicality of integration paradigms across different project types, and empirical studies were highlighted.
Overall, the review finds current research on the recognition of blockchain in addressing issues such as security, traceability and transparency, and complementing the system by integrating supporting applications. The ultimate vision can be a unified system where the information models are stored and operated on a fully decentralised distributed ledger, with smart contracts and assistive technologies for use in various scenarios throughout the lifecycle. However, significant gaps still exist between these potentials and widespread industry adoption.
Regarding future research on the process dimension, the aim should be to design fully integrated prototypes (horizontal expansion) or incorporate more functionality (vertical extensions) into the existing frameworks. The adaptability and suitability of the integration paradigm to various project types and procurement methods should also be studied. Empirical research to identify the operational processes necessary to accommodate the blockchain and its influence or benefits on the organisation is also essential. In terms of short-term technical dimension research, optimising existing solutions and testing the system in more diverse projects should be explored. Conducting comparative studies to investigate all options thoroughly, such as the choice of platform and storage methods, is also crucial. Investigating the most suitable integration options for various project types can also help in the short term. On the contextual dimension, developing and applying a TAM for the integration paradigm and mapping out process roadmaps for various cases should be prioritised. Investigating feedback from various stakeholders' and experts' perceptions of existing frameworks is crucial. Testing and analysing operational-level models or applications in the extensive industry can also provide valuable insights.
Ultimately, this study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, industry acceptance and empirical research to instil substantial development in blockchain and BIM integration. Balanced development of the process, technic and context is necessary for this integrated system. More mature applications are still necessary to bridge the gap between the potential of this integration and widespread industry adoption. To facilitate more mature applications, technological developments are still necessary for the blockchain field to provide more reliable technologies for integration, emphasising the necessity to focus on the construction industry and interdisciplinary collaboration. For the construction industry, improved BIM readiness and IFC/other interoperable schemas implementation in applications are necessary. While waiting for the technology to mature, empirical research must be brought into focus to instil substantial development. In the short term, the research should focus more on industry acceptance and the development of regulatory and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guidelines. A phased approach like the BIM maturity definition may be feasible in the longer term, with public sector projects remaining a prospect for private sector adoption, while optimising systems and designing supporting governance structures are the new targets.
The novelty of this study lies in providing a framework based on a sociotechnical perspective. The proposed framework contains three dimensions (process, technic and context), and three research elements were established to fulfil the study's aims: the “Why” aspect (necessities for integration), the “What” aspect (current applications or solutions) and the “How” aspect (considerations for moving the field forward). This framework enriches reviews by Tan et al. (2022) and Chung et al. (2022) by emphasising a balanced focus on the three dimensions and an integrated assessment of the three research aspects. This starting point draws academic attention to the factors beyond the technical dimension and is expected to be applied in other future reviews. In addition, the study provides policymakers and practitioners working in the AECO industry with insight into the current state and future opportunities to prepare for the transition in this disruptive paradigm.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this research paper presents a comprehensive systematic review of the current state and future opportunities for blockchain and BIM integration in the AECO industry. Using a mixed-method systematic review, the study considers various literature types and dimensions or life cycle stages, synthesising dispersed literature to identify current limitations and future research needs. It highlights the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, industry acceptance and empirical research to bridge the gap between the potential of blockchain and BIM integration and its widespread adoption in the industry and proposes future research directions on the process, technical, and contextual dimensions. Ultimately, the overall aim of this study was achieved, which is to analyse the current state of research and identify future research directions that can advance development and implementation.
This review provides policymakers and practitioners in the AECO industry with insights into the current state and future opportunities for blockchain and BIM integration, preparing them for the transition in this disruptive paradigm. The proposed sociotechnical framework provides a starting point for future reviews, considering multiple dimensions and aspects. Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the research topic, future reviews could consider additional databases and keyword combinations, as well as evidence from various fields, to provide a more comprehensive review.
Figures
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of the systematic review process (adapted from PRISMA, 2020)
Results of the qualitative systematic review
| Author(s) and summary of key points | Dimension | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| *Abbreviation: PR – Process, TE – Technical, CO – Contextual, BC – Blockchain, AT – Assistive Technologies, SC – Smart Contract | PR | TE | CO |
| ●: Primary subject ○: Secondary subject | |||
| Aleksandrova et al. (2019) – Scrutinised integration of digital technology and recommended a “BC + BIM + AT” ecosystem for complete lifecycle management | ● | ○ | ○ |
| Amaludin and Taharin (2018) – Delineated the possibilities of blockchain in the construction industry and recommended the integration of blockchain and BIM to facilitate enhanced real-time management of projects | ● | ○ | |
| Bachtobji et al. (2022) – Proposed a “BIM + BC + IoT + edge computing” architecture for building management systems | ● | ||
| Brandín and Abrishami (2021) – Discussed “BC + SC + BIM + AT” into an information traceability platform to support data lifecycle management of assets in offsite manufacturing | ● | ○ | |
| Bukunova and Bukunov (2019) – Demonstrated the necessities, approaches and challenges of integrating blockchain with BIM | ● | ● | |
| Calvetti et al. (2020) – Investigated lawful and personnel readiness to adapt the integration of blockchain and BIM | ○ | ● | |
| Casillo et al. (2022) – Suggested the usage of NFTs to manage the ownership of digital assets, address BIM families' authentication and copyright management | ● | ||
| Celik et al. (2023) – Designed a BC-based BIM data provenance model for the purpose of managing BIM data during construction and tested the solution in real project scenarios | ● | ● | |
| Chong and Diamantopoulos (2020) – Investigated an actual case and designed a “BC + BIM + IoT” system for automatic payment in the building stage | ● | ○ | |
| Cocco et al. (2022) – Proposed a Self-Sovereign Identity-based system using “public BC + BIM + AT” to manage the flow of building-related information | ○ | ● | |
| Copeland and Bilec (2020) – Designed a “BC + BIM + AT” framework to implement circular economy | ● | ○ | |
| Darabseh and Martins (2020) – Reviewed the possibilities of blockchain applications in the construction industry (including, but not restricted to BIM), identified risks and prospects for integration with BIM | ● | ● | |
| Das et al. (2021) – Reviewed and acknowledged the security levels of BIM and suggested using blockchain to enhance security | ○ | ● | |
| Dounas et al. (2019) – Designed a platform based on ETH and IPFS to integrate BIM and implement smart contracts to improve collaboration and competition in distributed design | ● | ● | |
| Dounas et al. (2020) – Designed a decentralised BIM framework based on ETH and IPFS to enhance the design process | ○ | ● | |
| Dounas et al. (2021) – Designed a decentralised design framework of “ETH + SC + BIM” to enhance the design process | ● | ● | |
| Elghaish et al. (2020) – Designed and tested a “BC + SC + BIM” system for automated financials throughout the lifecycle of IPD projects | ● | ● | |
| Fitriawijaya and Hsin-Hsuan (2019) – Designed a framework using blockchain and smart contracts to improve management of supply chain in a BIM-enabled environment | ● | ● | |
| Ganter and Lützkendorf (2019) – Suggested blockchain for improvement of information management of BIM throughout the whole lifecycle of projects | ● | ○ | ○ |
| Guo et al. (2022) – Proposed a BC and SC-based system for uploading BIM model copyrights | ● | ||
| Hamledari and Fischer (2021) – Designed and tested an automated payment system based on the ETH platform, field data, BIM and AI | ● | ● | ○ |
| Hammi et al. (2022) – Designed an information system using SC based on HLF and Odoo PLM/ERP framework with integrated BIM software so as to address collaboration issues in BIM workflows | ● | ● | |
| Hargaden et al. (2019) – Presented the prospects of blockchain in the construction industry, examined the possibility and resolution of integrating with BIM | ● | ● | |
| Hijazi et al. (2022) – Designed a BIM single source of truth prototype based on HLF for supply chain data delivery | ● | ● | |
| Honcharenko et al. (2021) – Introduced a BIM platform consisting of IoT, BC and AT to manage the lifecycle of construction objects | ● | ○ | ○ |
| Huang et al. (2022) – Envisioned the use of BIM and BC to document urban development in the Metaverse | ● | ○ | |
| Jiang et al. (2022) – Designed a BC-Enabled BIM system framework based on Fabric consortium chain, storing BIM model data and key data in IPFS | ● | ||
| Kasten (2020) – Reviewed the prospective applications of blockchain (including, but not restricted to BIM), taking note of the challenges and the significance of background for the integration | ● | ○ | |
| Kifokeris and Koch (2020) – Proposed a blockchain-based digital business model (including BIM and other technologies) for construction logistics consultants through literature review and empirical study | ● | ● | |
| Kiu et al. (2020) – Reviewed the prospective applications for blockchain in the building industry (including, but not restricted to BIM) and discussed the significance and challenges of the integration of blockchain and BIM | ● | ○ | |
| Le (2021) – Developed an ETH-based “BC + BIM” application so as to resolve model copyright issues | ○ | ● | |
| Lee et al. (2021) – Designed and tested a “BC + BIM + IoT” framework for digital twins | ● | ● | |
| Lemeš and Lemeš (2019) – Demonstrated the possible and present limitations of the integration of blockchain and BIM | ● | ○ | |
| Li et al. (2022) – Designed a BC-Enabled IoT-BIM platform for Data-Information-Knowledge drove supply chain management based on the open BIM standard extended from IFC and performed case study experiments | ● | ● | |
| Li et al. (2021a) – Designed a “BC + BIM + IoT+ AT” platform for prefabricated construction supply chain management and corroborated it in an actual case | ● | ● | |
| Li et al. (2021b) – Designed and tested a “BC + BIM + AI” platform for project management | ● | ● | |
| Li et al. (2019a) – Investigated seven application areas of blockchain in the construction industry (including, but not limited to BIM), showcased a conceptual model, and evaluated the applicability of the integration of blockchain and BIM | ● | ● | ● |
| Li et al. (2019b) – Designed a digital ecosystem of “BC + SC + BIM + IoT + AT” to improve processes and payments throughout the lifecycle of projects | ● | ● | |
| Liu et al. (2019) – Designed a “BC + SC + BIM” framework to improve data management in design processes of sustainable buildings | ● | ● | |
| Liu et al. (2021) – Investigated the utilisation of blockchain, BIM, and City Information Management (CIM) to enhance sustainability throughout the lifecycle of buildings | ● | ○ | |
| Lokshina et al. (2019) – Designed a “BC + BIM + IoT” structure to improve the smart building design process | ● | ○ | |
| Mason (2017) – Interviewed practitioners and presented the potential and existing limitations in the integration of smart contracts and BIM | ● | ● | ● |
| McNamara and Sepasgozar (2020) – Designed a TAM and discussed with practitioners about investigating industry inclination for blockchain, BIM and smart contracts | ○ | ● | |
| McNamara and Sepasgozar (2021) – Designed TAM and looked into potential smart contracts applications in the construction industry (including, but not limited to BIM) | ○ | ● | |
| Nawari (2020) – Proposed an “HLF + SC + BIM” framework to improve the design process and implement automated building code compliance checking | ○ | ● | |
| Nawari and Ravindran (2019a) – Summarised the characteristics of blockchain and suggested a framework to improve the design workflow of BIM | ● | ● | |
| Nawari and Ravindran (2019b) – Reviewed the latent applications of blockchain in the construction industry (including, but not restricted to BIM) and demonstrated a “BC + SC + BIM” framework for disaster recovery process | ● | ● | |
| Nawari and Ravindran (2019c) – Summarised the characteristics of blockchain and offered the possibilities of the integration of blockchain and BIM for improvement of process | ● | ● | |
| Ng (2021) – Designed a framework using blockchain to connect BIM and Generative Adversarial Neural Networks (GANs) to enhance design crowdsourcing processes | ● | ● | |
| Ni et al. (2021) – Proposed an integrated digital management platform of “BIM + BC + SC” and a management mechanism to improve the efficiency of the project | ● | ○ | |
| Parn and Edwards (2019) – Examined cybersecurity in BIM and CDE and suggested the possibilities of the integration of blockchain and BIM | ● | ○ | |
| Pattini et al. (2020) – Suggested the utilisation of blockchain and smart contracts to improve BIM processes throughout the lifecycle of projects | ● | ○ | |
| Pellegrini et al. (2020) – Investigated and proposed the integration of blockchain and BIM to improve waste management dependability | ● | ○ | |
| Pradeep et al. (2019) – Examined the challenges in BIM processes and the possibilities and limitations of blockchain applications | ● | ○ | |
| Pradeep et al. (2020) – Presented functional requirements for the integration of blockchain and BIM to enhance exchange of data and examined a case study of BIMCHAIN | ● | ○ | ○ |
| Pradeep et al. (2021) – Designed and tested a “BC + BIM” model for design accountability control | ● | ● | ○ |
| Prakash and Ambekar (2020) – Interviewed practitioners and suggested a roadmap for the adoption of the integration of blockchain, smart contract and BIM in the industry | ○ | ● | |
| Raco et al. (2021) – Demonstrates the findings of the development of a “BC + BIM” application that implements a CDE and optimises lifecycle management | ○ | ● | ○ |
| Raslan et al. (2020) – Investigated the integration of blockchain, BIM and Asset Information Modelling (AIM) to improve asset management processes | ● | ○ | |
| Sheng et al. (2020) – Designed and tested an “HLF + SC + BIM” framework to improve the management of quality information | ● | ● | |
| Shojaei et al. (2019) – Designed and tested an “HLF + SC + BIM” framework to manage projects and enable semi-automatic payments | ● | ● | |
| Siountri et al. (2019) – Designed a “BC + BIM + IoT” framework to improve O&M process of smart building | ● | ○ | |
| Siountri et al. (2020) – Suggested the integration of blockchain, BIM and IoT for whole lifecycle management of smart buildings and analysed a case of smart museum | ● | ○ | |
| Sonmez et al. (2022) – Developed a “BIM + SC” progress payment management system, simulated real-life cases and surveyed practitioner attitudes | ● | ● | ● |
| Suliyanti and Sari (2019) – Suggested a framework for using blockchain to enhance security of BIM | ○ | ● | |
| Suliyanti and Sari (2021) – Designed an “HLF + BIM” framework for the improvement of information exchange throughout the lifecycle of projects | ● | ● | |
| Tao et al. (2022) – Designed confidentiality-minded framework for BC-based BIM design collaboration using IPFS model, developed access control model and new design coordination strategy | ○ | ● | |
| Turk and Klinc (2017) – Advised blockchain to improve management and showed the technical logic for incorporation with BIM | ○ | ● | |
| Wang et al. (2022b) – Proposed a BC system for privacy protection of BIM big data in smart buildings | ● | ||
| Wang et al. (2022a) – Designed a multi-person collaborative design model, using the SDT approach, IPFS storage model and a period division mechanism addressing synchronisation issues | ○ | ● | |
| Wu et al. (2022b) – Designed a BC-enabled IoT-BIM platform on the basis of the SDT approach for off-site production management, solving the “single point of failure” problem in IoT networks | ○ | ● | |
| Xue and Lu (2020) – Designed and tested a resolution to reduce redundancy of information in the integration of blockchain and BIM | ● | ||
| Yang et al. (2020) – Examined two case studies based on two blockchain platforms and indicated the advantages and disadvantages of the integration of blockchain and BIM | ● | ● | ○ |
| Ye and König (2020) – Designed a “BC + SC + BIM” framework for automated payments | ● | ● | |
| Ye et al. (2018) – Suggested a Cup-of-Water theory of the integration of blockchain, BIM and IoT | ● | ○ | |
| Ye et al. (2020) – Designed a “BC + SC + BIM” framework for automated payments | ● | ● | |
| Ye et al. (2022) – Designed a “SC + BIM” framework to realise, record, and visualise the automation delivery, acceptance, and payment process | ○ | ● | |
| Zheng et al. (2019a) – Designed and evaluated a model integrating BIM, cloud computing, big data and blockchain to improve security of information in the design and construction stage | ● | ● | |
| Zheng et al. (2019b) – Designed and tested a context-aware access control model for cloud BIM amalgamated with blockchain | ● | ● | |
| Total count79 | 72 | 70 | 21 |
Source: Authors’ own creation
Literature classified into different lifecycle phases or application fields (process dimension)
Source: Authors’ own creation
Appendix 1.
Appendix 2.
References
Ahmad, Z., Thaheem, M.J. and Maqsoom, A. (2018), “Building information modeling as a risk transformer: an evolutionary insight into the project uncertainty”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 92, pp. 103-119, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.03.032.
Aleksandrova, E., Vinogradova, V. and Tokunova, G. (2019), “Integration of digital technologies in the field of construction in the Russian Federation”, Engineering Management in Production and Services, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 38-47, doi: 10.2478/emj-2019-0019.
Amaludin, A.E. and Taharin, M.R.B. (2018), “Prospect of blockchain technology for construction project management in Malaysia”, ASM Science Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 199-205.
Arrotéia, A.V., da Silva, T.F., do Amaral, G.G., Melhado, S.B. and de Carvalho, M.M. (2022), “BIM critical success factors in different lifecycle phases: a review exploring the technology, people, and process BIM categories”, Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 32-51, doi: 10.19255/JMPM02903.
Aste, T., Tasca, P. and Di Matteo, T. (2017), “Blockchain technologies: the foreseeable impact on society and industry”, Computer, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 18-28, doi: 10.1109/MC.2017.3571064.
Babalola, A., Musa, S., Akinlolu, M.T. and Haupt, T.C. (2021), “A bibliometric review of advances in building information modeling (BIM) research”, Journal of Engineering, Design, and Technology, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-01-2021-0013.
Bachtobji, S., Kouicem, D.E. and Mabrouk, M.B. (2022), “Towards blockchain based architecture for building information modelling (BIM)”, 5th Conference on Cloud and Internet of Things (CIoT), Marrakech, pp. 53-59, doi: 10.1109/CIoT53061.2022.9766540.
Bolpagni, M., Gavina, R. and Ribeiro, D. (2022), “Industry 4.0 for the built environment – methodologies, technologies and skills”, Structural Integrity, Vol. 20 Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-82430-3.
Boyes, H.A. (2013), “Cyber security of intelligent buildings: a review”, 8th IET International System Safety Conference Incorporating the Cyber Security Conference 2013, pp. 21-28, doi: 10.1049/cp.2013.1698.
Brandín, R. and Abrishami, S. (2021), “Information traceability platforms for asset data lifecycle: blockchain-based technologies”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 364-386, doi: 10.1108/SASBE-03-2021-0042.
Bukunova, O.V. and Bukunov, A.S. (2019), “Tools of data transmission at building information modeling”, in ”, International Science and Technology Conference: EastConf, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/Eastonf.2019.8725373.
Calvetti, D., Magalhães, P.N.M., Sujan, S.F., Gonçalves, M.C. and Campos de Sousa, H.J. (2020), “Challenges of upgrading craft workforce into construction 4.0: framework and agreements”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law, Vol. 173 No. 4, pp. 158-165, doi: 10.1680/jmapl.20.00004.
Casillo, M., Colace, F., Gupta, B.B., Lorusso, A., Marongiu, F. and Santaniello, D. (2022), “Blockchain and NFT: a novel approach to support BIM and architectural design”, International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing, and Technologies (3ICT), pp. 616-620, doi: 10.1109/3ICT56508.2022.9990815.
Celik, Y., Petri, I. and Barati, M. (2023), “Blockchain supported BIM data provenance for construction projects”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 144, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2022.103768.
Charef, R. and Emmitt, S. (2021), “Uses of building information modelling for overcoming barriers to a circular economy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 285, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124854.
Charef, R., Alaka, H. and Emmitt, S. (2018), “Beyond the third dimension of BIM: a systematic review of literature and assessment of professional views”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 242-257, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.04.028.
Chong, H.Y. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2020), “Integrating advanced technologies to uphold security of payment: data flow diagram”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 114, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103158.
Chung, I.B., Caldas, C. and Leite, F. (2022), “An analysis of blockchain technology and smart contracts for building information modeling”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 27, doi: 10.36680/j.itcon.2022.047.
Cocco, L., Tonelli, R. and Marchesi, M. (2022), “A system proposal for information management in building sector based on BIM, SSI, IoT and blockchain”, Future Internet, Vol. 14 No. 5, p. 140, doi: 10.3390/fi14050140.
Copeland, S. and Bilec, M. (2020), “Buildings as material banks using RFID and building information modeling in a circular economy”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 90, pp. 143-147, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.122.
Dakhli, Z., Lafhaj, Z. and Mossman, A. (2019), “The potential of blockchain in building construction”, Buildings, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 77, doi: 10.3390/buildings9040077.
Darabseh, M. and Martins, J.P. (2020), “Risks and opportunities for reforming construction with blockchain: bibliometric study”, Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 1204-1217, doi: 10.28991/cej-2020-03091541.
Das, M., Tao, X. and Cheng, J.C. (2021), “BIM security: a critical review and recommendations using encryption strategy and blockchain”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 126, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103682.
Dounas, T., Lombardi, D. and Jabi, W. (2019), “Towards blockchains for architectural design Consensus mechanisms for collaboration in BIM”, in Sousa, J.P., Henriques, G.C. and Xavier, J.P. (Eds), Proceedings of the 37th Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe and 23rd Sociedad Iberoamericana de Gráfica Digital joint conference 2019: Architecture in the age of the 4th industrial revolution, Vol. 1, pp. 267-274, doi: 10.5151/proceedings-ecaadesigradi2019_296.
Dounas, T., Jabi, W. and Lombardi, D. (2020), “Smart contracts for decentralised building information modelling”, in Köering, D. and Werner, L. C. (Eds), Proceedings of 38th Education and Research in Computer Aided Rrchitectural Design in Europe Conference 2020: Anthropologic – Architecture and Fabrication in the Cognitive Age, Vol. 2, pp. 565-574, doi: 10.52842/conf.ecaade.2020.2.565.
Dounas, T., Lombardi, D. and Jabi, W. (2021), “Framework for decentralised architectural design BIM and blockchain integration”, International Journal of Architectural Computing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 157-173, doi: 10.1177/1478077120963376.
Elghaish, F., Abrishami, S. and Hosseini, M.R. (2020), “Integrated project delivery with blockchain: an automated financial system”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 114, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103182.
Ethereum.org (2023), “The merge”, available at: https://ethereum.org/en/upgrades/merge/ (accessed 24 February 2023).
Fitriawijaya, A. and Hsin-Hsuan, T. (2019), “A blockchain approach to supply chain management in a BIM-enabled environment”, Proceedings of the 24th CAADRIA Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 411-420, doi: 10.52842/conf.caadria.2019.2.411.
Ganter, M. and Lützkendorf, T. (2019), “Information management throughout the life cycle of buildings-Basics and new approaches such as blockchain”, IOP Conference Series: earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 323 No. 1, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012110.
Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Tookey, J., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Azhar, S., Efimova, O. and Raahemifar, K. (2017), “Building information modelling (BIM) uptake: clear benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 75, pp. 1046-1053, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.083.
Guo, P., Xiong, R., Yu, G., Gong, P., Xiong, F. and Ren, W. (2022), “CPAS: a copyright-protected autonomous sharing scheme by blockchain and smart contract for BIM data”, 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics, pp. 198-204, doi: 10.1109/ICCCBDA55098.2022.9778918.
Hamledari, H. and Fischer, M. (2021), “The application of blockchain-based crypto assets for integrating the physical and financial supply chains in the construction and engineering industry”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 127, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103711.
Hammi, A., Belhi, A., Gasmi, H. and Bouras, A. (2022), “Blockchain-based lifecycle approach towards a secure building information modelling (BIM) workflow”, 2nd International Conference on Computers and Automation (CompAuto), pp. 140-147, doi: 10.1109/CompAuto55930.2022.00034.
Hargaden, V., Papakostas, N., Newell, A., Khavia, A. and Scanlon, A. (2019), “The role of blockchain technologies in construction engineering project management”, IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICE.2019.8792582.
Hijazi, A.A., Perera, S., Calheiros, R.N. and Alashwal, A. (2021), “Rationale for the integration of BIM and blockchain for the construction supply chain data delivery: a systematic literature review and validation through focus group”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 147 No. 10, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002142.
Hijazi, A.A., Perera, S., Calheiros, R.N. and Alashwal, A. (2022), “A data model for integrating BIM and blockchain to enable a single source of truth for the construction supply chain data delivery”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2022-0209.
Holzer, D. (2011), “BIM's seven deadly sins”, International Journal of Architectural Computing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 463-480, doi: 10.1260/1478-0771.9.4.463.
Honcharenko, T., Kyivska, K., Serpinska, O., Savenko, V., Kysliuk, D. and Orlyk, Y. (2021), Digital Transformation of the Construction Design Based on the Building Information Modeling and Internet of Things, ITTAP, pp. 267-279.
Huang, H., Zeng, X., Zhao, L., Qiu, C., Wu, H. and Fan, L. (2022), “Fusion of building information modeling and blockchain for metaverse: a survey”, IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, Vol. 3, pp. 195-207, doi: 10.1109/OJCS.2022.3206494.
Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Misra, S.K., Rana, N.P., Raghavan, V. and Akella, V. (2019), “Blockchain research, practice and policy: applications, benefits, limitations, emerging research themes and research agenda”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 49, pp. 114-129, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.005.
Hunhevicz, J.J. and Hall, D.M. (2020), “Do you need a blockchain in construction? use case categories and decision framework for DLT design options”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 45, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2020.101094.
ISO 19650-1 (2018), “Organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM)—information management using building information modelling—part 1: concepts and principles”, Geneva.
Jamal, K., A., A., Mohammad, M.F., Hashim, N., Mohamed M.R., and Ramli, M.A. (2019), “Challenges of building information modelling (BIM) from the Malaysian architect's perspective”, MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 266, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201926605003.
Jiang, H., Yun, L. and Li, B. (2022), “Framework for blockchain-enabled building information modeling”, Advances in Information and Communication: Proceedings of the 2022 Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC), pp. 832-842, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-98012-2_58.
Kähkönen, K. and Rannisto, J. (2015), “Understanding fundamental and practical ingredients of construction project data management”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23, doi: 10.1108/CI-04-2014-0026.
Kasten, J.E. (2020), “Engineering and manufacturing on the blockchain: a systematic review”, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 31-47, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2020.2964224.
Kifokeris, D. and Koch, C. (2020), “A conceptual digital business model for construction logistics consultants, featuring a sociomaterial blockchain solution for integrated economic, material and information flows”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 25, pp. 500-521, doi: 10.36680/J.ITCON.2020.029.
Kim, K., Lee, G. and Kim, S. (2020), “A study on the application of blockchain technology in the construction industry”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 2561-2571, doi: 10.1007/s12205-020-0188-x.
Kiu, M.S., Chia, F.C. and Wong, P.F. (2020), “Exploring the potentials of blockchain application in construction industry: a systematic review”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 22 No. 15, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1833436.
Lamb, K. (2018), “Blockchain and smart contracts: what the AEC sector needs to know”, Centre for Digital Built Britain, doi: 10.17863/CAM.26272.
Le, H.T. (2021), “Blockchain for building information modeling in construction industry”, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2406 No. 1, doi: 10.1063/5.0067158.
Lee, D., Lee, S.H., Masoud, N., Krishnan, M.S. and Li, V.C. (2021), “Integrated digital twin and blockchain framework to support accountable information sharing in construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 127, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103688.
Lemeš, S. and Lemeš, L. (2019), “Blockchain in distributed CAD environments”, in Karabegović, I. (Eds), New Technologies, Development and Application II, Vol. 5, pp. 25-32, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-18072-0_3.
Li, J. and Kassem, M. (2019), “Informing implementation of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in construction: interviews with industry and academia”, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference of CIB W78, pp. 169-178.
Li, J. and Kassem, M. (2021), “Applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and blockchain-enabled smart contracts in construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 132, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103955.
Li, W., Duan, P. and Su, J. (2021b), “The effectiveness of project management construction with data mining and blockchain consensus”, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1007/s12652-020-02668-7.
Li, J., Greenwood, D. and Kassem, M. (2019a), “Blockchain in the built environment and construction industry: a systematic review, conceptual models and practical use cases”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 102, pp. 288-307, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.005.
Li, B., Fu, F.F., Zhong, H. and Luo, H.B. (2012), “Research on the computational model for carbon emissions in building construction stage based on BIM”, Structural Survey, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 411-425, doi: 10.1108/02630801211288198.
Li, J., Kassem, M., Ciribini, A.L.C. and Bolpagni, M. (2019b), “A proposed approach integrating DLT, BIM, IOT and smart contracts: demonstration using a simulated installation task”, International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019: Driving data informed decision-making, pp. 275-282, doi: 10.1680/icsic.64669.275.
Li, C.Z., Chen, Z., Xue, F., Kong, X.T., Xiao, B., Lai, X. and Zhao, Y. (2021a), “A blockchain-and IoT-based smart product-service system for the sustainability of prefabricated housing construction”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 286, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125391.
Li, X., Lu, W., Xue, F., Wu, L., Zhao, R., Lou, J. and Xu, J. (2022), “Blockchain-enabled IoT-BIM platform for supply chain management in modular construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 148 No. 2, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002229.
Liu, Z., Jiang, L., Osmani, M. and Demian, P. (2019), “Building information management and blockchain for sustainable building design information management framework”, Electronics, Vol. 8 No. 7, p. 724, doi: 10.3390/electronics8070724.
Liu, Z., Chi, Z., Osmani, M. and Demian, P. (2021), “Blockchain and building information management (BIM) for sustainable building development within the context of smart cities”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 4, doi: 10.3390/su13042090.
Liu, H., Skibniewski, M.J., Ju, Q., Li, J. and Jiang, H. (2020), “BIM-enabled construction innovation through collaboration: a mixed-methods systematic review”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1541-1560, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2020-0181.
Lokshina, I.V., Greguš, M. and Thomas, W.L. (2019), “Application of integrated building information modeling, IoT and blockchain technologies in system design of a smart building”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 160, pp. 497-502, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.058.
McNamara, A.J. and Sepasgozar, S.M. (2020), “Developing a theoretical framework for intelligent contract acceptance”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 421-445, doi: 10.1108/CI-07-2019-0061.
McNamara, A.J. and Sepasgozar, S.M. (2021), “Intelligent contract adoption in the construction industry – concept development”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 122, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103452.
Mason, J. (2017), “Intelligent contracts and the construction industry”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 9 No. 3, doi: 10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000233.
Mitkus, S. and Mitkus, T. (2014), “Causes of conflicts in a construction industry: a communicational approach”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 110, pp. 777-786, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.922.
Nawari, N.O. (2020), “Blockchain technologies: hyperledger fabric in BIM work processes”, in Toledo Santos, E., Scheer, S. (Eds), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering ICCCBE 2020, Vol. 98 Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-51295-8_56.
Nawari, N.O. and Ravindran, S. (2019a), “Blockchain and the built environment: potentials and limitations”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 25, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100832.
Nawari, N.O. and Ravindran, S. (2019b), “Blockchain and building information modeling (BIM): review and applications in post-disaster recovery”, Buildings, Vol. 9 No. 6, p. 149, doi: 10.3390/BUILDINGS9060149.
Nawari, N.O. and Ravindran, S. (2019c), “Blockchain technology and BIM process: review and potential applications”, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 209-238, available at: www.itcon.org/2019/12
Ng, P. (2021), “21E8: Coupling generative adversarial neural networks (GANS) with blockchain applications in building information modelling (BIM) systems”, Proceedings of the 26th CAADRIA Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 111-120.
Ni, Y., Sun, B. and Wang, Y. (2021), “Blockchain-based BIM digital project management mechanism research”, IEEE Access, Vol. 9, pp. 161342-161351, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3130270.
Obrecht, T.P., Röck, M., Hoxha, E. and Passer, A. (2020), “The challenge of integrating life cycle assessment in the building design process – a systematic literature review of BIM-LCA workflows”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 588 No. 3, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/588/3/032024.
Papadonikolaki, E., Tezel, A., Yitmen, I. and Hilletofth, P. (2022), “Blockchain innovation ecosystems orchestration in construction”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 123 No. 2, pp. 672-694, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-03-2022-0134.
Parn, E.A. and Edwards, D. (2019), “Cyber threats confronting the digital built environment: common data environment vulnerabilities and blockchain deterrence”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 245-266, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0101.
Pasini, D., Ventura, S.M., Rinaldi, S., Bellagente, P., Flammini, A. and Ciribini, A.L. (2016), “Exploiting internet of things and building information modeling framework for management of cognitive buildings”, Proceedings of the IEEE International Smart Cities Conference 2016, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ISC2.2016.7580817.
Pattini, G.I.U.L.I.A., Di Giuda, G.M. and Tagliabue, L.C. (2020), “Blockchain application for contract schemes in the construction industry”, EURO MED SEC 3 Holistic Overview of Structural Design and Construction, pp. 1-6.
Pellegrini, L., Campi, S., Locatelli, M., Pattini, G., Di Giuda, G.M. and Tagliabue, L.C. (2020), “Digital transition and waste management in architecture, engineering, construction, and operations industry”, Frontiers in Energy Research, Vol. 8, p. 282, doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2020.576462.
Perera, S., Nanayakkara, S., Rodrigo, M.N.N., Senaratne, S. and Weinand, R. (2020), “Blockchain technology: is it hype or real in the construction industry?”, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 17, doi: 10.1016/j.jii.2020.100125.
Peters, E., Subar, K. and Martin, H. (2019), “Late payment and nonpayment within the construction industry: causes, effects, and solutions”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 11 No. 3, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000314.
Plevris, V., Nikos, D.L. and Ahmet, Z. (2022), “Blockchain in civil engineering, architecture and construction industry: state of the art, evolution, challenges and opportunities”, Frontiers in Built Environment, Vol. 8, doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2022.840303.
Pradeep, A.S.E., Amor, R. and Yiu, T.W. (2019), “Leveraging blockchain technology in a BIM workflow: a literature review”, International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019: Driving data-informed decision-making, pp. 371-380, doi: 10.1680/icsic.64669.371.
Pradeep, A.S.E., Amor, R. and Yiu, T.W. (2020), “Blockchain improving trust in BIM data exchange: a case study on BIMCHAIN”, Construction Research Congress 2020: Computer Applications, pp. 1174-1183, doi: 10.1061/9780784482865.124.
Pradeep, A.S.E., Yiu, T.W., Zou, Y. and Amor, R. (2021), “Blockchain-aided information exchange records for design liability control and improved security”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 126, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103667.
Prakash, A. and Ambekar, S. (2020), “Digital transformation using blockchain technology in the construction industry”, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 256-278, doi: 10.1080/15228053.2021.1880245.
PRISMA (2020), “PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only”, available at: https://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_flow_diagram_new_SRs_v1.docx (accessed 3 May 2022).
Raco, F., Stefani, M., Balzani, M. and Ferrari, L. (2021), “Towards effective project documentation, transparency, and data-driven decision-making through BIM-blockchain based applications”, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. 2021 No. 5, pp. 437-444.
Rao, T.A. (2006), “Architecture, engineering, and construction informatics an overview of the developments and future”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 483-486.
Raslan, A., Kapogiannis, G., Cheshmehzangi, A., Tizani, W. and Towey, D. (2020), “Blockchain: future facilitator of asset information modelling and management?”, IEEE 44th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference, pp. 523-528, doi: 10.1109/COMPSAC48688.2020.0-199.
Rodrigo, M.N.N., Perera, S., Senaratne, S. and Jin, X. (2020), “Potential application of blockchain technology for embodied carbon estimating in construction supply chains”, Buildings, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 140, doi: 10.3390/BUILDINGS10080140.
Sajovic, I., Tomc, H.G. and Podgornik, B.B. (2018), “Bibliometric study and mapping of a journal in the field of visualization and computer graphics”, COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 263-287, doi: 10.1080/09737766.2018.1453677.
Scott, D.J., Broyd, T. and Ma, L. (2021), “Exploratory literature review of blockchain in the construction industry”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 132, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103914.
Sepasgozar, S.M. (2021), “Differentiating digital twin from digital shadow: elucidating a paradigm shift to expedite a smart, sustainable built environment”, Buildings, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 151, doi: 10.3390/buildings11040151.
Shelbourn, M.A., Bouchlaghem, D., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P. (2007), “Framework for effective collaborative working in construction”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law, Vol. 160 No. 4, pp. 149-157, doi: 10.1680/mpal.2007.160.4.149.
Sheng, D., Ding, L., Zhong, B., Love, P.E., Luo, H. and Chen, J. (2020), “Construction quality information management with blockchains”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 120, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103373.
Shojaei, A., Flood, I., Moud, H.I., Hatami, M. and Zhang, X. (2019), “An implementation of smart contracts by integrating BIM and blockchain”, in Arai, K., Bhatia, R., Kapoor, S. (Eds), Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC), Springer, Cham, Vol. 2, pp. 519-527, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-32523-7_36.
Singh, V., Gu, N. and Wang, X. (2011), “A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 134-144, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.011.
Siountri, K., Skondras, E. and Vergados, D.D. (2019), “Towards a smart museum using ΒΙΜ, IoT, blockchain and advanced digital technologies”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Vision, Image and Signal Processing, Vol. 23, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1145/3387168.3387196.
Siountri, K., Skondras, E. and Vergados, D.D. (2020), “Developing smart buildings using blockchain, internet of things, and building information modeling”, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Telecommunications and Networking, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.4018/ijitn.2020070101.
Sonmez, R., Ahmadisheykhsarmast, S. and Güngör, A.A. (2022), “BIM integrated smart contract for construction project progress payment administration”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 139, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104294.
Suliyanti, W.N. and Sari, R.F. (2019), “Blockchain-based building information modeling”, 2nd International Conference on Applied Engineering, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ICAE47758.2019.9221744.
Suliyanti, W.N. and Sari, R.F. (2021), “Blockchain-based implementation of building information modeling information using hyperledger composer”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 321, doi: 10.3390/su13010321.
Tan, J.H., Loo, S.C., Zainon, N., Aziz, N.M. and Rahim, F.A.M. (2022), “Potential functionality and workability of blockchain within a building information modelling (BIM) environment”, Journal of Facilities Management, doi: 10.1108/JFM-10-2021-0131.
Tao, X., Liu, Y., Wong, P.K.Y., Chen, K., Das, M. and Cheng, J.C. (2022), “Confidentiality-minded framework for blockchain-based BIM design collaboration”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 136, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104172.
Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W. (1951), “Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: an examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system”, Human Relations, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-38, doi: 10.1177/001872675100400101.
Turk, Ž. and Klinc, R. (2017), “Potentials of blockchain technology for construction management”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 196, pp. 638-645, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.052.
Volk, R., Stengel, J. and Schultmann, F. (2014), “Building information modeling (BIM) for existing buildings - literature review and future needs”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 38, pp. 109-127, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.023.
Wang, M., Zlatanova, S., Sepasgozar, S. and Wang, C.C. (2020a), “A systematic review of digital technology adoption in off-site construction: current status and future direction towards industry 4.0”, Buildings, Vol. 10 No. 11, p. 204, doi: 10.3390/buildings10110204.
Wang, J., Shen, Y., Xiong, X., Wang, X. and Fang, X. (2022a), “Research on multi-person collaborative design of BIM drawing based on blockchain”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 12 No. 1, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-20321-5.
Wang, H., Hao, X., Yin, L., Gong, P., Xiong, F. and Ren, W. (2022b), “A blockchain-based and privacy-protected method for sharing of BIM big data”, 2022 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics, pp. 185-191, doi: 10.1109/ICCCBDA55098.2022.9778869.
Wang, Z., Hu, H., Wang, T., Gong, J., Ren, X. and Xiao, Q. (2020b), “Blockchain-based framework for improving supply chain traceability and information sharing in precast construction”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 111, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103063.
Winch, G. (2012), “The management of construction projects”, Managing Construction Projects, 2nd ed., pp. 3-19. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Winfield, M. (2015), “Building information modelling: the legal frontier-overcoming legal and contractual obstacles”, Society of Construction Law, Vol. 178, available at: www.ace-cae.eu/fileadmin/New_Upload/3._Area_2_Practice/BIM/Other_Docs/5_0_Legal_Frontier.pdf (accessed 23 September 2022).
Winfield, M. (2018), “The legal frontier: blockchain and smart contracts”, BIMPlus, available at: www.bimplus.co.uk/management/legal-frontier-blockchain-and-smart-contracts/ (accessed 23 March 2023).
Winfield, M. and Rock, S.A. (2018), “The Winfield Rock report: overcoming the legal and contractual barriers of BIM”, available at: www.maber.co.uk/app/uploads/2018/03/The-Winfield-Rock-Report.pdf (accessed 23 September 2022).
Woodhead, R., Stephenson, P. and Morrey, D. (2018), “Digital construction: from point solutions to IoT ecosystem”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 93, pp. 35-46, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.004.
Wu, H., Zhang, P., Li, H., Zhong, B., Fung, I.W. and Lee, Y.Y.R. (2022a), “Blockchain technology in the construction industry: current status, challenges, and future directions”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 148 No. 10, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002380.
Wu, L., Lu, W., Xue, F., Li, X., Zhao, R. and Tang, M. (2022b), “Linking permissioned blockchain to internet of things (IoT) – BIM platform for off-site production management in modular construction”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 135, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2021.103573.
Xue, F. and Lu, W. (2020), “A semantic differential transaction approach to minimizing information redundancy for BIM and blockchain integration”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 118, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103270.
Yang, R., Wakefield, R., Lyu, S., Jayasuriya, S., Han, F., Yi, X., Yang, X., Amarasinghe, G. and Chen, S. (2020), “Public and private blockchain in construction business process and information integration”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 118, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103276.
Ye, X. and König, M. (2020), “Framework for automated billing in the construction industry using BIM and smart contracts”, International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Vol. 98, pp. 824-838, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-51295-8_57.
Ye, X., Sigalov, K. and König, M. (2020), “Integrating BIM-and cost-included information container with blockchain for construction automated payment using billing model and smart contracts”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Vol. 37, pp. 1388-1395, doi: 10.22260/isarc2020/0192.
Ye, X., Zeng, N. and König, M. (2022), “Visualization of blockchain-based smart contracts for delivery, acceptance, and payment process using BIM”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 1101 No. 4, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1101/4/042013.
Ye, Z., Yin, M., Tang, L. and Jiang, H. (2018), “Cup-of-Water theory: a review on the interaction of BIM, IoT and blockchain during the whole building lifecycle”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Vol. 35, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.22260/isarc2018/0066.
Yin, X., Liu, H., Chen, Y. and Al-Hussein, M. (2019), “Building information modelling for off-site construction: review and future directions”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 101, pp. 72-91, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.01.010.
Zhao, X. (2017), “A scientometric review of global BIM research: analysis and visualization”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 80, pp. 37-47, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.04.002.
Zheng, R., Jiang, J., Hao, X., Ren, W., Xiong, F. and Ren, Y. (2019a), “bcBIM: a blockchain-based big data model for BIM modification audit and provenance in mobile cloud”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2019, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1155/2019/5349538.
Zheng, R., Zhu, T., Jiang, J., Hao, X., Ren, W. and Xiong, F. (2019b), “CaACBIM: a context-aware access control model for BIM”, Information, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 47, doi: 10.3390/info10020047.
Zhong, B., Pan, X., Ding, L., Chen, Q. and Hu, X. (2023), “Blockchain-driven integration technology for the AEC industry”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 150, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104791.
Zhou, Y., Ding, L., Rao, Y., Luo, H., Medjdoub, B. and Zhong, H. (2017), “Formulating project-level building information modeling evaluation framework from the perspectives of organizations: a review 2”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 81p, pp. 44-55, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.05.004, volume ISSN 0926-5805.
Acknowledgements
Funding: This research is supported by Strategic Priorities Fund programme by NERC, and EPSCRC and Defra Project 1448824: Constructing a Digital Environment Expert Network.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.