Whitmore, D; Krystallis, I; Papadonikolaki, E; Ford, J; Cleaver, M and Alexander, D (2024) Digital twins in the asset life cycle: are we there yet? Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 177(4), pp. 184-192. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
An academic–industry team present the results of research conducted into the current benefits being derived from the use of digital twins across the entire life cycle of an asset. The team reviewed the benefits being derived by the asset-management community, as it is through this that through life productivity and effectiveness benefits will be realised. The team conducted a review of relevant literature, surveyed 122 practitioners and worked with their industry partner and a UK professional body to validate their conclusions. Specifically, (a) the authors examined the current application of digital twins in three industry sectors: process industries, infrastructure (civil engineering) and manufacturing. (b) The authors grouped the data according to role types – namely, professionals working predominantly in design and build and professionals in the operation and maintenance part of the life cycle. As regards the sector results, the responses were found to be contradictory. When controlling by role type, the results are more cohesive. Individuals involved in the operation and maintenance stages consistently indicated that digital twins are not delivering on their promise. The authors present a series of problem statements to define the current state, together with some managerial recommendations, and the authors propose further work to establish detailed guidance for infrastructure sector projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling (BIM); built environment; digital twin; information technology; productivity |
| Index terms: | practitioner, digital twin, infrastructure sector, information technology, design and build, operation and maintenance, industry sector, built environment, effectiveness, building information modelling, productivity, life cycle |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, digital engineering, practitioner, maintenance engineering, computing systems, value management, information systems, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, performance management, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Project Management, Procurement, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here