Baienat, S. and Iordanova, I. (2026) Quantifying building adaptability and circular performance through BIM: The adaptation intensity index (AII), circular adaptability performance (CAP), and digital adaptability passport (DAP). Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, pp. 1-22. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose – Building adaptability is increasingly recognised as a critical strategy for enabling circular and low-carbon transitions in the built environment. However, it remains largely conceptual, lacking quantifiable representation within digital design workflows and systematic integration with performance assessment frameworks. This study aims to operationalise building adaptability as a measurable and digitally embedded attribute within Building Information Modelling (BIM) environments and to establish a structured linkage between adaptability parameters and circular performance outcomes. Design/methodology/approach – This study adopts a Design Science Research (DSR) methodology combining literature synthesis, expert consultation, computational implementation within an IFC-based BIM environment, and case study validation. The research develops and integrates three artefacts: the Adaptation Intensity Index (AII), the Circular Adaptability Performance (CAP) metric, and the Digital Adaptability Passport (DAP). Findings – The findings demonstrate that building adaptability can be systematically quantified and integrated within BIM-based workflows. The proposed framework establishes a structured linkage between adaptability assessment and circular performance evaluation, while introducing a digital governance mechanism that enables structured management and traceability of adaptability-related information. Research limitations/implications – This study is limited by its application to a single case-study building and a controlled BIM environment, which constrains the generalizability of weighting factors and reference values across building typologies. Adaptability scores rely partly on expert judgement and available design-stage information, which may evolve during operation. Despite these limitations, the research provides a transferable framework for integrating adaptability into BIM-based circular performance assessment and establishes a foundation for future automation, broader typological validation, and integration with digital twins and lifecycle assessment workflows. Practical implications – The framework provides practitioners with a structured method to assess building adaptability as a measurable performance criterion within BIM-based workflows. By embedding adaptability and circularity indicators in open BIM standards, it supports comparison of design alternatives, documentation of future change potential, and informed decision-making across project phases. The Digital Adaptability Passport enables continuity of adaptability data beyond design into operation and renovation. Future development will focus on integrating the framework into BIM tools to automate adaptability assessment, allowing adaptability to be evaluated continuously as building designs evolve. Social implications – By enabling buildings to adapt over time rather than become obsolete, the proposed framework supports more resilient, inclusive, and long-lasting built environments. Quantifying adaptability helps align design decisions with changing user needs, evolving social functions, and long-term community use. Improved documentation and governance of adaptability information also enhance transparency and accountability among stakeholders, facilitating informed participation across the building lifecycle. In the long term, promoting adaptable and circular buildings can contribute to reduced disruption from renovations, extended building usability, and more sustainable use of resources within communities. Originality/value – The study integrates quantitative adaptability measurement, circular performance assessment and IFC-based governance within a unified digital framework, strengthening the link between design intention and lifecycle sustainability performance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building adaptability; building information modelling; circular economy; digital passport; IFC |
| Index terms: | integration, strengthening, accountability, governance, digital twin, performance evaluation, design science research, documentation, renovation, building adaptability, user need, linkage, artefact, usability, performance outcome, traceability, lifecycle, performance assessment, validation, circularity, sustainability performance, design decision, building design, built environment, methodology, automation, workflow, building information modelling, adaptation, adaptability, strategy, practitioner, building typology, implementation, case study, circular economy, decision-making, expert judgement, transparency |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, building performance, user-centered design, sustainable materials, data collection methods, risk assessment, assessment methods, decision analysis, design practice, renovation and retrofit, professional development, automation and robotics, user focus, practitioner, sociology, sustainability assessment, construction type, supplier oversight, business, digital engineering, organizational analysis, sustainable design, architectural design, performance measurement, structural engineering, liability law, value management, contractual arrangements, management, project delivery, information systems, research methods |
| Topics: | Governance, Roles and Professions, Urban Studies, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Project Management, Research Practice, Procurement, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Information Management, Supply Chain Management, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Design Practice, Sustainability |
| 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