Rashidi, A.; Sarvari, H.; Chan, D. W. M.; Olawumi, T. O. and Edwards, D. J. (2026) A systematic taxonomic review of the application of BIM and digital twins technologies in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 33(3), pp. 1813-1835. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the transition from Building Information Modelling (BIM) to digital twins (DT) in the construction industry. Specifically, the research explores the current state (themes and trends) and future directions of this emerging research domain. Design/methodology/approach – A multi-stage approach was employed that combines scientometric and systematic review approaches. The scientometric analysis involves quantitative assessment of scientific publications retrieved from the Web of Science database – using software tools like VOSviewer and HistCite. The systematic review involved a rigorous synthesis and evaluation of the existing literature to identify research gaps, themes, clusters and future directions. Clusters obtained from the scientometric analysis of the co-occurrence network were then used as a subject base for a systematic study. Findings – Emergent findings reveal a rapidly growing interest in BIM-DT integration, with over 90% of publications since 2020. The United Kingdom, China and Italy are the leading contributing countries. Five prominent research clusters identified are: (1) Construction 4.0 technologies; (2) smart cities and urban environments; (3) heritage BIM and laser scanning; (4) asset and facility management; and (5) energy and sustainability. The study highlights the potential of BIM-DT integration for enhancing project delivery, asset management and sustainability practices in the built environment. Moreover, the project's life cycle operation phase has garnered the most attention from researchers in this field compared to other phases. Originality/value – This unique study is comprehensive in its approach by combining scientometric and systematic methods to provide a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the BIM-DT research landscape. Unlike previous reviews that focused solely on facility management, this study's scope covers the entire construction sector. By identifying research gaps, challenges and future directions, this study establishes a solid foundation for researchers exploring this emerging field and envisions the future landscape of BIM-DT integration in the built environment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling; construction industry; digital twins; scientometric; systematic review |
| Index terms: | methodology, integration, digital twin, database, construction sector, United Kingdom, science, urban environment, construction 4.0, project delivery, publication, Italy, smart city, China, asset management, built environment, building information modelling, laser scanning, construction industry, life cycle, systematic literature review, operation phase |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, research methods, specialized education, project delivery, value management, Geography, asset management, data management, information systems, digital engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, research evaluation and metrics, research dissemination and communication, organizational analysis, urban sustainability, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Procurement, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Education, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Information Management, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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