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, 24(1), pp. 280-316. ISSN 1471-4175
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | blockchain; building information modelling; systematic review |
| Index terms: | investigation, prototype, traceability, integration, methodology, database, science, testing, technology acceptance model, paradigm, practitioner, transparency, funding, dimension, systematic literature review, construction industry, building information modelling, blockchain |
| Subjects: | supplier oversight, practitioner, education and knowledge transfer, professional development, information systems, data management, specialized education, modelling and simulation, health monitoring assessment and metrics, research methods, professional practice, data collection methods, acoustic properties, computing systems, research evaluation and metrics, economic analysis, organizational analysis, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Information Management, Supply Chain Management, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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