See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361661413

A data model for integrating BIM and blockchain to enable a single source of
truth for the construction supply chain data delivery

Article  in  Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · July 2022

DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2022-0209

CITATIONS READS

0 53

4 authors, including:

Amer A. Hijazi Srinath Perera

Western Sydney University Western Sydney University
18 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS    233 PUBLICATIONS   2,284 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ali Mohammed Alashwal

Western Sydney University
56 PUBLICATIONS   416 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling Drivers and Barriers to Adopting Risk Management Practices in Malaysian Small Construction Projects View project

Developing a Blockchain Based e-Procurement Framework for Construction Supply Chains View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amer A. Hijazi on 01 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

A data model for integrating BIM Integrating

BIM and
and blockchain to enable a single blockchain

source of truth for the construction

supply chain data delivery
Amer A. Hijazi and Srinath Perera Received 4 March 2022
Revised 15 May 2022
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, 4 June 2022
Sydney, Australia Accepted 19 June 2022

Rodrigo N. Calheiros
School of Computer, Data and Mathematical Sciences,
Western Sydney University - Parramatta South Campus, Sydney, Australia, and
Ali Alashwal
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment,
Western Sydney University - Penrith Campus, Kingswood, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Despite a large amount of BIM data at the handover stage, it is still difficult to identify and
effectively isolate valuable construction supply chain (CSC) data that need to be reliably handed over for
operation. Moreover, the role of reconciling disparate data is usually played by one party. The integration of
blockchain and BIM is a plausible framework for building a reliable digital asset lifecycle. This paper proposes
a BIM single source of truth (BIMSSoT) data model using blockchain for ensuring a reliable CSC data delivery.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilises a blended methodology, the foundation of which is
ingrained in business and management research with elements of information and communication technology
(ICT) research wherever required. Knowledge elicitation case studies utilising novel interventions such as a
data flow diagram (DFD), taxonomy and entity-relationship diagram (ERD) were used in this paper to develop
the BIMSSoT data model. The model was validated using an expert forum, and its technological feasibility was
established by developing a proof of concept.
Findings – The practical contribution of this research leads to the progression of BIM towards digital
engineering to go beyond object-based 3D modelling by building structured and reliable datasets, transitioning
from project-centric records to a digital ecosystem of linked databases by utilizing blockchain’s potential for
ensuring trusted data.
Originality/value – To the best of the author’s knowledge, prior to this paper, no research had investigated a
detailed data model development leveraging blockchain and BIM to integrate an immutable and complete
record of CSC data as another dimension of BIM for operations.
Keywords Building information modeling (BIM), Blockchain, Data flow diagram, Taxonomy,
Entity-relationship diagram, Reliable digital deliverable
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Building information modeling (BIM) was initially envisaged to expedite coordination and data
exchange among construction supply chain (CSC) stakeholders (Yitmen and Alizadehsalehi,

The authors would like to acknowledge that this research is fully funded by the Centre for Smart Modern
Construction under the School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment at Western Sydney
Engineering, Construction and
University. Architectural Management
Data availability statement: Interview transcripts and interpreted statements that support the findings © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-03-2022-0209
ECAM 2021). Today, BIM faces challenges in dealing with the need for delivering machine-readable data
as potential solutions to automation for operation and facilities management (Alonso et al., 2019,
Australian Standard AS 7739-1, 2022). ISO 19650 describes two key information models for
operation to hand over BIM information. The first is the Project Information Model (PIM), which
comprises all information and 3D models used and produced during the planning, design and
construction as defined in contract documentation, including but not limited to design
engineering information, temporary works information, scheduling information, cost
management data and all other relevant project information (ISO, 2018). The second is the
Asset Information Model (AIM), which comprises all asset information deliverables produced for
use in the operation and maintenance as defined in contract documentation, including but not
limited to handover asset register, all as-built engineering information such as 3D models, records
of installation and maintenance dates, warranties, property ownership details, and other relevant
asset management information for operations and maintenance (ISO, 2018). However, in the
context of the CSC data delivery for operation, it is still challenging to identify and effectively
isolate “what is in and what is out of BIM” for operation and facilities management (Australian
Standard AS 7739-1, 2022, Thabet and Lucas, 2017).
The traditional approach of BIM implementation where it is still managed using an electronic
file-based model significantly diminishes the potential usefulness and value of BIM data for
operation (Wilkinson et al., 2016, Australian Standard AS 7739-1, 2022). As projects transition
from one stage to the next, much of the value gained in the BIM project data is lost at handover
because of discontinuity of data management, lack of consistent data requirements, and an
absence of reliability and trust (Salinas and Prado, 2019). Creating datasets to meet project
information requirements for operations after completion is essential for building a digital asset
lifecycle using consistent processes managed in standardised databases (Australian Standard AS
7739-1, 2022, Hunt and Betancur, 2016). Thus, the evolution of BIM towards digital engineering
(NSW, 2019) aims to go beyond the provision of object-based 3D modelling delivery (BSI, 2013) by
building structured and reliable datasets. It needs to reinforce the development of BIM as a single
source of truth, BIMSSoT, by transitioning from siloed electronic files to a digital ecosystem of
linked databases, which is what this paper is proposing for development through blockchain.
The concept of a single source of truth (SSoT) was derived from the information and
communication technology (ICT) sector and defined as an authoritative source of data that offers
data services to other entities while ensuring that business entity decisions are based on the same
data (Pang and Szafron, 2014). Blockchain has been introduced as a possible solution that deals
with the coordination of information and trust to enable a SSoT (Vadgama, 2019; Li and Kassem,
2021). Blockchain provides a data transaction method that ensures trust in a trustless
environment through a cryptographic mechanism (Coyne and Onabolu, 2017; Nakamoto, 2008).
Existing studies have shown that blockchain has real potential to support the role of BIM in digital
engineering and enable solutions to many of its challenges in relation to reliable data delivery for
operation (Li and Kassem, 2021). However, they mainly focussed on how this integration could
occur by presenting the blockchain as a new technological tool enabling the transparency
transactions for BIM in the form of “project-centric” files (Li and Kassem, 2021; Dounas et al., 2020).
This integration approach severely limits the use of blockchain’s potential for value transfer
towards a digital ecosystem of linked databases. It also confines the BIM in siloed electronic files
(Hijazi et al., 2021). There is a clear gap in understanding the data types used and stored in a
decentralised database such as blockchain and the relationships between these data types.
Further, there is a lack of understanding on how the data should be grouped, their formats and
attributes to facilitate the BIM in becoming a SSoT model creating a ready access to the history of
the CSC data for operation. This research develops a detailed data model for integrating BIM and
blockchain that users can validate and transform into a software prototype to demonstrate a
single source of truth for the CSC data delivery, with the moniker BIM single source of truth
(BIMSSoT) model. Three research questions were posed to address the research gap;
 RQ1. How can the existing CSC dataflow be transformed into a proposed blockchain- Integrating
based system integrated with BIM? BIM and
RQ2. What is the CSC data that needs to be operating in the blockchain? blockchain
RQ3. How can the proposed blockchain-based system integrated with BIM be translated
into a physical database?
A physical database in the context of relational database management systems represent the
materialization of a database into an actual system (Finkelstein et al., 1988). Four
underpinning objectives have been designed to answer these questions; (OBJ1) To develop
the flow of data for the BIMSSoT framework in the form of a data flow diagram (DFD) (OBJ2)
To develop a taxonomy of a classification scheme enhancing the understanding of the CSC data
delivery that is relevant to be operating in a blockchain for building the digital asset lifecycle
(OBJ3) To structure the database systems design in the form of an entity-relationship diagram
(ERD) to be transformed into a physical database (OBJ4) To establish concept validity and
technological feasibility of the BIMSSoT data model. The BIMSSoT enables the valuable CSC
data for operation and facilities management to be in machine-readable datasets reinforcing
the role of BIM in building a reliable digital asset lifecycle.
The scope of this research is limited to the CSC data delivery for handover and operation.
BIM for the design stage where the process is centered on the BIM model authoring is
excluded as it does not interfere with the asset information delivery or responsibility and
reliability of the product data for the handover stage. Supply chain activities that do not deal
with the data delivery for construction, operation, and asset management are also excluded
from the scope of this research. Moreover, the economic feasibility or cost-benefit analysis of
the proposed solution is also beyond the scope of this research.

2. The status of BIM and blockchain integration

The construction industry is trailing behind other industries with respect to the share of
blockchain business activities (Government of Australia, 2020). BIM offers a plausible route
to blockchain adoption in the industry for construction and asset management operations
(Mason and Escott, 2018). Although Xue and Lu (2020) and Kang (2022) stressed that
integrating blockchain with BIM is no longer debatable, Hamledari and Fischer (2021) and
Liu et al. (2021) mentioned that it is yet to be widely documented in academic literature. The
majority of existing academic studies have analysed blockchain integration with BIM to
identify the drivers and barriers of this integration (Perera et al., 2020; Li and Kassem, 2021;
Sadeghi et al., 2022), or how this integration could happen by proposing the blockchain as a
new technological tool enabling the transparency of transactions for BIM in the form of
‘project-centric’ files (Nawari, 2020; Elghaish et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2021) which limits BIM’s
potential to generate machine-readable datasets as a means to automate processes.
According to Xue and Lu (2020) “those who developed an operable blockchain BIM system face
information redundancy challenges as the file-based data exchange in BIM (e.g., information
delivery manual) leads to massive data volume”. They pointed out that even more challenging
is that information in BIM file is continuously being changed and updated by the CSC
stakeholders. Thus, the archived history of operable blockchain BIM file-based data
exchange is redundant in current practice because saving a small change can lead to a new
BIM file (Xue and Lu, 2020; Pradeep et al., 2020).
Penzes (2018) argues that the fundamental concept that can enable the combination of BIM
and blockchain is their shared ability to serve as an SSoT for the CSC data delivery. Most
existing academic studies have focused on the BIM design process integrated with a
Blockchain mechanism (Dounas et al., 2020; Tao et al., 2021; Pradeep et al., 2020); or created a
toolset through the integration of BIM with blockchain to provide an automated financial
ECAM platform (Elghaish et al., 2020, 2022); or leveraged smart contracts for crypto-economic
performance-based incentives (Hunhevicz et al., 2022); or proposed a conceptual model for the
recycling of construction materials via the integration of blockchain and BIM (Akbarieh et al.,
2020). The proposed solutions from existing academic studies might validate the BIM model
authoring copyright for the design and development stage (Pradeep et al., 2020; Tao et al.,
2022), but not the ownership for the CSC product data in the BIM model for operation. Further,
the focus of most existing studies on BIM and blockchain is the financial flow (Elghaish et al.,
2022; Hunhevicz et al., 2022) which deal with the coordination of activities during construction,
not collaboration between parties to hand over the CSC product data for operation.
The integration of BIM and blockchain for information delivery is not only a technological
solution, rather a plausible framework for automating the delivery of trustworthy and
reliable CSC data for asset management and operations (Mason, 2019). Despite the potential,
no research has yet investigated a data model development leveraging blockchain and BIM to
propose a SSoT of CSC data delivery as another dimension of BIM for operations (Xue and Lu,
2020; Baek et al., 2020; Li and Kassem, 2021). While Li et al. (2022) propose a novel service-
oriented system architecture of blockchain-enabled IoT-BIM platform for a data-information-
knowledge driven supply chain management, it is only limited to modular construction and
does not include a data model preceding the system architecture. Hijazi et al. (2021) develops a
rationale for integrating BIM and blockchain enabling a single source of truth system;
however, the paper does not go beyond proposing a theoretical reliable digital deliverable
model and does not include a data model for the integration. Even though most of the existing
researchers mentioned above propose software prototypes to demonstrate the integration of
BIM and blockchain, there is a lack of a detailed methodology that users can validate and
transform into a physical database to put processes in motion to implement a reliable CSC
data delivery. According to Australian Standard AS 7739-1 (2022), data modelling is typically
considered to be the first stage in designing a database. It is an essential process to identify
and locate sensitive data types and their formats and attributes (dataset) stored in a database,
that standardizes the format in which data will be shared (Mosley et al., 2010; Qing and Yu-
Liu, 2009). Therefore, the originality of this research lies in the fact that before proposing a
new technological solution integrating BIM and blockchain for CSC data delivery, it develops
a holistic data model utilising novel theories that originate in ICT literature, including a DFD,
taxonomy and ERD. The following section will explain the theoretical foundation that is
necessary to articulate a basis for formulating the research methodology.

3. Theoretical foundation of data model development for the BIMSSoT

The handover process between the construction and operation phases might contain large
amounts of BIM information, which is valuable to different stakeholders at different stages
(Thabet and Lucas, 2017). The excess of information handed over for long-term facility use is
often described as the “tsunami” effect (Hunt and Betancur, 2016; Thabet and Lucas, 2017).
Despite the enormous quantity of BIM data at the handover stage, Thabet and Lucas (2017)
claim that some CSC data needed for the processes after the completion are still not included
in the handover model because that data was not originally vital for the design or
construction.
To set foundational attributes of the BIMSSoT data model, on-chain data is defined in this
paper as valuable (needed) CSC data for operation and facilities management that must be
operated using blockchain to build the digital asset life cycle. Off-chain data is defined as non-
valuable information (not needed) for operation and facilities management that takes the
value outside of the blockchain in BIM to ensure the responsibility of an electronic file-based
model delivery. The BIMSSoT data model ensures a reliable digital delivery of CSC data for
operations and facilities management (Hijazi et al., 2021). Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual
 Integrating
BIM and
blockchain

Figure 1.
Conceptual
understanding of the
BIM single source of
truth (BIMSSoT)
ECAM understanding of the BIMSSoT that ensures an immutable and complete CSC data delivery
using the potential of blockchain. The BIMSSoT allows valuable CSC data for operation and
facilities management (on-chain) to be in machine-readable datasets as potential solutions to
automation while being connected to a standard data environment and a file-based handover
BIM model.
The philosophy behind the sensing–shaping–seizing framework outlined by Felin and
Powell (2016) is used in this paper to reflect what is required to propel companies towards
digitalisation. It proved valuable in developing the methodology for integrating BIM and
blockchain for the CSC data delivery in terms of a BIMSSoT data model. Sensing in the
context of this paper takes the form of a DFD to structurally understand the current process
of the CSC data delivery by describing data flows of a system at various detail levels and
proposing logic models that express data transformation in a system (Qing and Yu-Liu, 2009;
Rodrigo et al., 2021). Shaping in the context of this paper, is presented in the form of
taxonomy. The BIMSSoT is still an abstract concept within the DFD at the sensing stage. The
taxonomy aims to advance from concept to proposition via developing a classification
scheme (Mosley et al., 2010) to understand what information needs to be stored on the
blockchain. Finally, in the context of this paper, Seizing is in the form of the ERD that aids the
data structures and database systems design to be transformed into a physical database
(Qing and Yu-Liu, 2009). In the ERD, the real world is symbolically represented in physical
data stores. It depicts data in terms of the entities and relationships described by the data type
(Brady and Loonam, 2010). The following section presents the methodology adopted in
developing the BIMSSoT data model comprising the DFD, taxonomy and ERD.

4. Research methodology
This paper utilises a blended methodology, the foundation of which is ingrained in business
and management research with elements of ICT research wherever required. The knowledge
elicitation philosophy which originated in ICT literature is implemented in this paper (Angius
et al., 2013; Hoffman and Lintern, 2006) in the form of case studies. This paper uses a direct
forward scenario simulation approach of knowledge elicitation case studies involving
directly questioning the expert on the shortcomings of the current CSC data delivery (Burge,
2001). This procedure generated the business logic that was developed into the system
prototype (Cooke, 1999). As the paper aims to develop a methodology for integrating BIM and
blockchain for the CSC data delivery, the knowledge elicitation case studies use several novel
interventions, such as a DFD, taxonomy and ERD to represent the data in a common form and
with common semantics. Unlike conventional case studies (Saunders et al., 2016), which are
designed primarily for an in-depth investigation on an individual, group or organisation, the
knowledge elicitation case studies aim to support greater levels of a structural understanding
of the existing process (Cooke, 1999). In this respect, it is vital to note that the knowledge
elicitation case studies are not a replacement for the conventional case studies; they rather
complement the conventional case studies and extend the range of its capabilities (Cooke,
1999). Knowledge elicitation case studies provide well-defined meanings to findings, allowing
for more accurate representations of human knowledge that specify the knowledge
structures of interest in this research domain (Berners-Lee et al., 2001; Hoffman and
Lintern, 2006).
Two construction enterprises in Australia were selected for the knowledge elicitation case
studies. The first company has around 13,000 employees, operates throughout Australia,
Asia, the Americas and Europe and is involved in large scale infrastructure and commercial
projects with major orders from the government sector. The second company has around
1,000 employees, operates throughout Australia and is involved in commercial and retail
building projects. The criteria for selecting the case organisations were based on their
information delivery. It was required to align with Common Data Environment (CDE) Integrating
workflows outlined in ISO-19650 Part 1, Section 12, and BIM maturity Level 2 deliverables BIM and
according to the PAS 1192-2-2013. Considering published standards in selecting the
nominated case studies helped understand the current BIM workflow for CSC data delivery to
blockchain
examine the current BIM handover model shortcomings and adopt the proposed solution.
Although technology solutions are mostly piloted on projects before being integrated with
the organisation, it is essential to consider organisation-wide case studies even when the
developed solution will potentially be deployed at a project level because the way in which
different processes interact dynamically at an organisation level impacts the development
(Koskinen, 2012; Zbrodoff, 2012). In this paper, an organisation is modeled as a collection of
components including stakeholders, processes and information systems (Wieringa, 2014).
A pilot use case was a requisite initial step in exploring a novel intervention such as DFD in
the construction research context (Chong and Diamantopoulos, 2020). Data collection through
the novel interventions required iterative collaboration between the interviewee and the
researcher to generate knowledge through collective efforts and actions which made semi-
structured interviews most suited for this research. For each interview, the verbatim transcripts
were interpreted and labelled to be uniquely identifiable and feed into the BIMSSoT data model
development. Iterative interviews allowed consent to be obtained on an interview analysis in a
subsequent interview to conclude the final versions. In addition, outputs from an interview were
used in subsequent interviews because of the holistic nature of the knowledge elicitation case
studies. According to the multiple case studies strategy by Yin (2017), it is recommended that
each case study should be conducted and analysed independently with respect to the research
objectives. Thus, for this paper, each case study was conducted separately. Subsequently, cross-
case conclusions were drawn to compare the data pattern from each analysis relying on
similarities, contrasts, differences, and gaps. Finally, the cross-case conclusions were used for the
suggestion propositions in the form of the DFD (Section 5.1), taxonomy (Section 5.2) and ERD
(Section 5.3) to develop the BIMSSoT data model.
Yin (2017) included validation processes as a follow-up activity to the multiple case study
strategy. One of the ways of validating a data model could be using plain language queries
(PLQs) that is already in use among the BIM Community (BSI, 2013). PLQs generate a list of
requirements to be addressed by a proposed solution; however, that would require significant
maturity among construction professionals about blockchain and its capabilities to be
implemented (Li and Kassem, 2021). Moreover, if the PLQs were to be directed to blockchain
experts, it would lead to a technology solution without clear understanding of the uniqueness
of the construction industry (Das et al., 2020). Therefore, this paper uses validation through an
expert forum consisting experts in hybrid roles who are involved in the digital
transformation of the construction processes from various perspectives. The details of the
selected experts and their suggestions that led to the fine-tuning the BIMSSoT data model are
presented and discussed in Section 6.1. However, the expert forum does not establish validity
of whether the knowledge elicited from the domain experts in the case studies can be
translated into a software prototype or not. Thus, the BIMSSoT proof of concept that
contributes towards establishing the technological feasibility of the BIMSSoT data model is
presented and discussed in Section 6.2.

5. The proposed BIMSSoT data model

5.1 The BIMSSoT DFD
The context level (Level 0) DFD presents the overall function of an organisational system and
only contains one process node (Process number 0). Level 1 DFD highlights the system’s
primary functions and breaks down the “Process number 0” into subprocesses. However,
referring to the DFD rules and structure, the external entities (source) and (sink) should
ECAM remain the same as in the context diagram (Qing and Yu-Liu, 2009). The proposed BIMSSoT
solution for CSC data delivery comprising the context level DFD and the Level 1 DFD were
obtained from the cross-case analysis and are illustrated in Figure 2.
The BIMSSoT DFD proposed a decentralised BIMSSoT database to store the on-chain
CSC data delivery, while the traditional common data environment was proposed to operate
as a centralised digital ecosystem of linked databases. The BIMSSoT DFD proposed direct
data transaction between the CSC stakeholders (external entities) and the main contractor.
Suppliers, sub-contractors, and consultants were identified as the only stakeholders that need
to be included as external entities in the BIMSSoT DFD.
The subprocesses for the BIMSSoT DFD Level 1 operate in the blockchain at the interface
between the CSC data delivery and the BIM handover (federated) model. Subprocess 1
provides a direct link of the CSC data from the external entities to the blockchain to deploy
transactions on top of a blockchain ledger. Subprocess 2 routes the data that need to be stored
in the blockchain system based on the conceptual understanding of the BIMSSoT to avoid

Figure 2.
The proposed
BIMSSoT DFD
redundancy in the blockchain system. Subprocess 3 links the blockchain system and BIM Integrating
platform through an Application Programming Interface (API) to centrally store (link) the on- BIM and
chain in the BIM platform for operation to create ready access to the history of the CSC data
for operation. The BIM data delivery must be in Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) format
blockchain
(ifcXML) to be retrieved using language such as JavaScript or Go, utilized by a blockchain
platform (Nawari, 2020). The cross-case analysis indicated that there is value in an immutable
record for ownership, warranty, and maintenance data. However, the data for construction
activities such as the construction program (4D BIM) does not need to be operated on-chain as
it is related to the coordination of activities during the construction process, not collaboration
between parties to hand over the CSC data delivery.

5.2 The BIMSSoT taxonomy

The cross-case analysis confirmed that there is no current unified approach for asset
classification across all construction sectors in Australia. Multiple standards including
Uniclass 2015, or ISO 12006.2:2015 are used within New South Wales (NSW) Australia to
permit flexibility and localised bespoke standards (Australian Standard AS 7739-1, 2022).
There is no one strategy yet to adopt a common classification standard at any state or federal
government level in Australia. As a result, many organisations have developed their own
classification systems, representing a significant effort/cost to maintain and align.
The BIMSSoT taxonomy was developed to advance from concepts to proposition through
the development of a classification scheme (Lambert, 2005) to enhance the understanding of
what data needs to be stored on-chain and off-chain, demonstrating the concept of “less is
more”. A hierarchical taxonomy is used in this paper to develop the BIMSSoT taxonomy
because it is relatively simple to understand and apply in the industry as a proposed solution
(Mosley et al., 2010, Australian Standard AS 7739-1, 2022). The BIMSSoT Taxonomy and its
attributes derived from the cross-case analysis are illustrated in Figure 3.
There are two main characteristics of the BIMSSoT taxonomy; Responsibility and
Reliability. Responsibility is defined as the model information that needs to be delivered in line
with contractual obligations by ensuring coordination and cooperation among multiple CSC
stakeholders (off-chain data), and it takes the value outside of the blockchain in a centralised
database, including the BIM Execution Plan and model information and its attributes.
Whereas reliability is defined as the workflow to ensure that disparate data is reconciled by
multiple parties through an automated system that satisfies common conditions (On-chain
data), and it is the data that needs to be operated using a decentralised platform, including
ownership, warranty and maintenance and its attributes. The ownership attributes ensure a
unique identification for CSC element data in the IFC format through their own blockchain
hashes. The unique hash value for IFC element data from supplier, subcontractor, or
consultant defines a record in the on-chain dataset. This value results from the SHA-256, a
cryptographic (one-way) hash function (ARUP, 2019; Zheng et al., 2019) to ensure that the CSC
data delivery is immutable enabling a reliable handover model for operation.

5.3 The BIMSSoT ERD

The BIMSSoT ERD follows the BIMSSoT taxonomy and its attributes as their true
representation in the real world (physical database). The BIMSSoT ERD demonstrates the on-
chain database (decentralised database) and its interface with the BIM (centralised database)
as illustrated in Figure 4.
The cross-case analysis confirmed that the BIMSSoT ERD needs to track the BIM object/
model owner, not only the originator. In the CSC, the word “originator” refers to the firm or/
person who creates the BIM object, hypothetically speaking a manufacturer or/supplier.
While the “owner” of the CSC data refers to the firm/or person who creates, adds, or modifies
ECAM

Figure 3.
The proposed
BIMSSoT taxonomy
and its attributes

the BIM object/element (consultant, supplier, or sub-contractor). The cross-case analysis

proposed the Australian Business Number (ABN) as the unique identifier of data owner
(sender). Therefore, ABN is considered as one of the owner attributes of the BIMSSoT ERD.
The “transactions entity” ensures the CSC element’s transaction history is traceable by
including the update operation as one of the attributes. The unique hash value for IFC element
data from supplier, subcontractor, or consultant is used as a primary key that defines a record
in the on-chain dataset. The BIMSSoT ERD was translated into business logic and utilised for
the development of the proof of concept to establish the technological feasibility of the
BIMSSoT data model.

6. Concept validity of the BIMSSoT data model

The proposed BIMSSoT data model is validated in two steps as discussed in Section 4. This
paper an expert forum consisting experts in hybrid roles who are involved in the digital
transformation of the construction processes to validate the components of the data model.
However, as mentioned earlier the expert forum does not establish validity of whether the
 Integrating
BIM and
blockchain

Figure 4.
The proposed
BIMSSoT ERD

data model can be translated into a software prototype or not. Thus, the BIMSSoT proof of
concept that contributes towards establishing the technological feasibility of the BIMSSoT
data model.

6.1 Expert forum validation

This paper utilises an expert forum comprising nine experts. Table 1 presents the details of
the selected experts and their coding schemes. The expert forum commenced with the

Experience
Code (Years) The current role Stakeholder group

E1 10þ Principal Digital Delivery Engineer Contractor

E2 10þ BIM Manager and Researcher in the adoption of Contractor/Academia
blockchain in the construction
E3 15þ BIM Consultant Consultant
E4 15þ Head of Innovation Contractor
E5 10þ Business Development Manager Information Technology
Integrator in construction
E6 30þ Digital Engineering Lead Facility Manager
E7 25þ Lawyer and acting for government regulators Legal and consulting in
construction Table 1.
E8 15þ Lecturer in Supply Chain Management Academia The coding scheme and
E9 20þ Head of BIM International and acting for Contractor/Regulator participant details for
government regulators the expert forum
ECAM validity of the DFD, followed by the validity of data taxonomy and the validity of the ERD.
The expert forum concluded with a discussion of whether the BIMSSoT model can serve as
an evidence trail in case of disputes.
The expert forum commenced with the validation of the external entities and workflows of
the BIMSSoT DFD. The expert forum agreed that the suppliers, sub-contractors, and
consultants are the only stakeholders that need to be included as external entities in the
BIMSSoT DFD for the CSC data delivery. E8 pointed out that “design input comprises
installation information that is obtained from the supplier; however, there are other attributes
of the design information that is obtained from consultants.” Thus, it is essential that the
consultants’ design data inputs are retained and trusted as part of the supply chain process as
well. The experts suggested that the client should be part of the external entities only if they
wanted. However, there was consensus among the experts that giving the client access to
read and write on the ledger is considered data delivery, not sharing, which has a legal
process and consequences. Given this, adding the client as an external entity was not
considered in the BIMSSoT DFD. All the expert forum participants agreed that the direct data
transaction between the supplier and the main contractor is considered a valid workflow.
Assimilating the above, the BIMSSoT DFD obtained from the cross-case analysis was
retained as it is after the validation.
The expert forum further delved into the taxonomy, its attributes, and the concept of “less
is more”. There was consensus among the experts that there is no hard and fast way of
handing over CSC data as it is usually uploaded as a formal document or issued as an
attachment to a project mail. The expert forum agreed that ownership, warranty and
maintenance and its classification related CSC data are required to be operating in the
blockchain to ensure a reliable digital delivery. All the expert forum participants agreed that
the BIMSSoT taxonomy represents “less is more” by avoiding redundancy in the blockchain
system. E4 stressed on the fact that “less is more is a key advantage of the BIMSSoT data
model as this is what BIM needs, to become part of digital engineering for the building life cycle”.
E8 advised that “it would be valuable to present the taxonomy as a dynamic solution instead of a
static on-chain and off-chain classification as some off-chain elements may in some contexts be
required as on-chain elements”. The BIMSSoT on-chain and off-chain attributes have been
developed to be consistent and predictable by applying a logical and familiar structure to
enable navigation and usability. Thus, it can be presented as a dynamic solution that allows
an organisation to define their on-chain attributes as per their asset requirement and similarly
off-chain attributes can be defined based on the contractual obligation ensuring a durable,
robust, and flexible solution. However, the hierarchy would still remain the same.
The expert forum continued with the validation of the ERD. There was consensus among
the experts that the main contractor is in the best position to maintain the BIMSSoT, given
her or his responsibility to manage the CSC and deliver the handover BIM model. All
participants agreed that the BIMSSoT needs to track the owner of the BIM object/model, not
only the originator. The originator creates the BIM object/model; however, once it passes on
to the subcontractors or consultants, they add information to it and own part of the
information in the model. If only the originator is traceable, it could lead to conflicts between
the CSC stakeholders. Given the taxonomy has been presented as a dynamic solution in the
preceding paragraph, the ERD should follow the taxonomy as its true representation in the
real world. However, the ERD cannot be dynamic by its definition as it is used to shape
the database systems design to be transformed into a physical database. Since no
modification was suggested to the taxonomy attributes, the BIMSSoT ERD retains the
attributes of the BIMSSoT taxonomy without any change.
The expert forum concluded with validating that the BIMSSoT can serve as a legal
deliverable, given its immutable property. E7 mentioned that “BIMSSoT has the potential to
provide for a legal deliverable, given all other legal aspects are ensured”. E5 elaborated that
“adding a legal perspective to the CSC data delivery will positively impact the value of the Integrating
construction industry beyond the monetary value”. There was consensus that the BIMSSoT BIM and
would provide a foundation for evidence-based proof of quality and compliance.
blockchain
6.2 The technological feasibility of the BIMSSoT data model
The BIMSSoT proof of concept was developed by directly deploying the CSC data from the
external entities to a blockchain network using a smart contract and generating a URL that
allows access to the CSC data transaction. The smart contract ensures the enforceability of
transparency by executing the CSC data according to the proposed BIMSSoT ERD attributes.
Adding to this, in the current web-enabled world, it becomes essential to provide machine-
readable forms of the data, generally in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format
accessible through a URL (Ghannad et al., 2019).
A systematic process protocol was followed to identify the most suitable blockchain
platform for the prototype recommended by Nanayakkara et al. (2021) and Perera et al. (2021).
This process entailed the application of the multi-criteria decision-making method: Simple
Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) (Kasie, 2013). The Hyperledger Fabric
(Hyperledger, 2021) blockchain platform was selected as it delivers high degrees of
flexibility and confidentiality in its design and implementation which makes it useful in many
of the built environment applications (Nawari, 2020). Subsequently, the BIMSSoT proof of
concept development included installing Hyperledger Fabric v2.3.3 (Hyperledger, 2021),
generating the network to implement and write a smart contract (chaincode) using JavaScript
programming language representing the business logic proposed in the BIMSSoT ERD, and
setting up an API server node to access BIM platform, in this paper, Revit DynaWeb
(DynaWeb, 2021).
The primary function of the proposed BIMSSoT smart contract is to enforce the CSC
stakeholders to handover on-chain CSC data based on the proposed BIMSSoT ERD
attributes. Furthermore, the smart contract ensures the CSC element’s transaction history
including amendments and revision. Figure 5 illustrates the mapping of the proposed
BIMSSoT ERD attributes into the smart contract parameters. All authorised users of the
prototype will access the blockchain directly (Node.js console application) or through the
graphical user interfaces in the client application (Node.js web application).
Blockchain network and BIM platform are connected through the REST API that
generates a URL to access the CSC data transaction. The Hyperledger Fabric Node runs the
network with chaincode instantiated, while the API Server Node runs the API Server code
and for external access. ExpressJS was used to build the API Server and to leverage the client
code invoke and query applications to build the actual logic. To connect the API Server Node
at localhost to Revit Dynamo, the web server solution was implemented. Thus, Ngrok was
used as a tool to create a tunnel from the public Internet to a port on the local machine. The
Ngrok tool generates a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) that allows access to the transaction
without doing any deployment. This ensures that the proposed system prototype solution is
vendor-agnostic. The Revit DynaWeb package was implemented in the Dynamo workplace
environment to link the URL, facilitate the input, request and response functions as it is
illustrated in Figure 6.
The Dynamo workplace environment helps retrieve (GET) details from the web and send
(POST) information to the web. It also includes some JSON de/serialisation nodes to use the
information from the web directly in Dynamo graphs as native types. Further, using
DynaWeb as part of the dynamo package automates repetitive processes to centrally link on-
chain CSC data delivery to the BIM model (Revit model). Thus, this solution ensures that the
decentralised database (form Hyperledger Fabric Network) can be linked to several BIM
models (Revit models) to store CSC data delivery. Simultaneously, the traditional BIM
common data environment (CDE) will still operate as a centralised digital ecosystem of linked
ECAM

Figure 5.
Business logic for the
blockchain smart
contract

Figure 6.
BIMSSoT Dynamo
workplace
environment

databases. At the same time, the BIM user can read the on-chain dataset directly from Revit
by clicking on properties for that element as shown in Figure 7.
The BIMSSoT proof of concept ensured the technological feasibility of the BIMSSoT data
model in enforcing a reliable CSC data delivery operating in blockchain (on-chain) and
centrally stored in BIM. If some data in the BIM model are changed, the dataset operating in
the blockchain will still remain unchanged and the mismatch will ensure traceability and
detection of an unauthorised modification to the BIM model. In the contrary, if some data is
overwritten in the blockchain database (BIMSSoT database), the system will store the history
of transactions thereby ensuring traceability for the CSC data delivery.
 Integrating
BIM and
blockchain

Figure 7.
Reading the on-chain
dataset from revit

7. Discussions
The BIMSSoT does not change the traditional CDE workflows outlined in ISO-19650 and BIM
maturity Level 2 deliverables according to the PAS 1192-2-2013. Rather, the BIMSSoT
replicates it to enhance the transparency of the traditional process and ensure the reliability of
the CSC data delivery. Even though blockchain is a disruptive technology, it does not disrupt
the workflow between the CSC actors and the BIM federated model for handover stage.
However, one of the main points of disruption is related to the CSC data handling; The
BIMSSoT will force the stakeholders to send the CSC data to be written in the blockchain
database when typically, they would send as a file. The BIMSSoT greatly enlarges the
capability to utilise blockchain’s potential for value transfer towards a digital ecosystem of
linked databases and does not restrict the BIM in siloed electronic files. It paves the way for
the progression of BIM towards digital engineering by enabling machine readable data in the
form of consistently structured databases (Australian Standard AS 7739-1, 2022). The
BIMSSoT proof of concept offers a vendor-agnostic solution that is interoperable with
different BIM software packages as it links on-chain CSC data using an URL-XML format
ensuring semantic interoperability across all project disciplines.
Despite these innovations, this paper is not free from limitations. The BIMSSoT does not
take into consideration the variations that might result from different procurement systems
where the role that each stakeholder plays in the BIMSSoT could be altered. However, the
integration of BIM and blockchain will only truly succeed when people and organisations
change their traditional procurement mindsets and invest more in innovation. The BIMSSoT
data taxonomy is currently developed using a qualitative methodology. It cannot be used as
an industry-wide benchmark in determining what data is valuable for operation unless
sufficient data from an industry-wide survey is analysed using quantitative techniques. This
paper was based on knowledge elicitation from carefully curated case studies in Australia,
which cannot represent all possible cases. It can only be said to represent a systematic
collection of data feasible for cross-sectional research like this one that provides a snapshot
view. The knowledge elicitation case studies used “Building” projects as BIM standards and
tools have matured comparatively more in building projects. Considering this, the BIMSSoT
data model is fine-tuned to building projects and may require minor adjustments if
implemented in infrastructure projects.
One of the most pressing challenges linked to blockchain that is proving to be a
conundrum to industry experts is that of legality. Even though the BIMSSoT has the
potential to serve as an evidence trail in case of disputes, given its immutable property, this
paper does not explore the legal implication of using smart contracts, their hybrid uses
ECAM alongside traditional contracts, and the necessary modifications to contract language.
Furthermore, blockchain technology is closely regulated and the uncertainties around these
constantly evolving regulations can be challenging for the real-world applications of the
technology in the construction sector as this research. Whenever there is a new technology
paradigm, various types of stakeholders emerge. The challenge would be to understand the
requirement for adoption and the role that each stakeholder will be convinced to play (buy-in)
to put processes in motion for implementation. Lastly, the system prototype establishes the
technological feasibility of the solution; however, the scalability of the solution was not tested
in this research. As a result, a disrupting technological solution such as the BIMSSoT might
face significant challenges in scalability and commercialization as it moves into the
implementation stage.

8. Conclusions and future work

The primary contribution to knowledge of this paper was the development of a detailed
methodology for the integration of BIM and blockchain for the CSC data delivery in terms of a
BIMSSoT data model. Prior to this paper, no research had investigated a detailed data model
development leveraging blockchain and BIM to integrate an immutable and complete record
of CSC data delivery as another dimension of BIM for operations. The BIMSSoT data model
comprising of the BIMSSoT DFD, taxonomy and ERD enable relevant CSC data to be stored
in a decentralised database (blockchain) and linked to a centralised digital ecosystem of
databases (BIM platforms).
The theoretical contribution of this research was in a blended methodology, the
foundation of which was ingrained in business and management research with elements of
information technology and computer science research wherever required. The methodology
incorporated novel interventions to be used for knowledge elicitation, including DFD, data
taxonomy, ERD with a theoretical underpinning of digital transformation. The BIMSSoT
DFD demonstrated the data transaction between the CSC external entities and the main
contractor for a reliable CSC data delivery at handover. The BIMSSoT taxonomy contributed
towards identifying the CSC data that is relevant for operation by classifying it into on-chain
and off-chain data. The BIMSSoT ERD contributed towards identifying the entities of the
physical BIMSSoT that demonstrates the on-chain database and its interface with the BIM.
The system prototype confirmed the suitability of Hyperledger Fabric for the integration and
provided an agnostic solution that is interoperable with different BIM software packages.
This blended methodology can be followed in the development of any blockchain-based
applications for the built environment or future research related to digital transformation in
the built environment.
The practical contribution of this research leads to the progression of BIM towards digital
engineering to go beyond the provision of object-based 3D modelling by building structured
and reliable datasets, transitioning from siloed electronic files (single-purpose or project-
centric information records) to a digital ecosystem of linked databases. It enables the valuable
CSC data for operation and facilities management to be in machine-readable datasets
reinforcing the role of BIM in building a reliable digital asset lifecycle pointing towards the
creation of digital twins that support the future vision of smart cities. Organisations could
utilise this solution not only to ensure a reliable digital deliverable but also to maintain a
competitive advantage.
Future research can utilise the findings to develop methodologies for other stages of the
project including design (pre-construction) or facilities management (post-construction).
Future research may focus on exploring the relationship between the different
procurement systems (Traditional, Design Bid Build, Public-Private Partnership,
Management or Early Contractor Engagement, Partnering, Alliancing/Integrated
Project Delivery) and the proposed methodology for the integration of BIM and Integrating
blockchain. Future development of the system prototype could focus on utilising BIM and
Generalized Adaptive Framework (GAF) to enable automating the code checking
processes for routing the data that need to be stored in the blockchain system. This
blockchain
might involve the development of the computable representation of set regulations and the
mechanisms for exchanging data between the different components of the framework and
the BIM data. Lastly, future construction research should focus on closely collaborating
with legal scholars to explore the legal implication of using blockchain.

References
Akbarieh, A., Carbone, W., Sch€afer, M., Waldmann, D. and Teferle, F.N. (2020), “Extended producer
responsibility in the construction sector through blockchain”, BIM and Smart Contract
Technologies.
Alonso, R., Borras, M., Koppelaar, R.H., Lodigiani, A., Loscos, E. and Y€ontem, E. (2019), “SPHERE:
BIM digital twin platform”, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, Vol. 9.
Angius, N., Primiero, G. and Turner, R. (2013), “The philosophy of computer science”, available at:
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2017/entries/computer-science/.
ARUP (2019), Blockchain and the Built Environment, ARUP, London.
Australian Standard AS 7739-1 (2022), Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board [Digital Engineering
for Rail], Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board (RISSB).
Baek, C.W., Lee, D.Y. and Park, C.S. (2020), “Blockchain based framework for verifying the adequacy
of scaffolding installation”, ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation
and Robotics in Construction, IAARC Publications, pp. 425-432.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O. (2001), “The semantic web”, Scientific American, Vol. 284,
pp. 34-43.
Brady, M. and Loonam, J. (2010), “Exploring the use of entity-relationship diagramming as a technique
to support grounded theory inquiry”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 224-237.
BSI (2013), PAS 1192-2 - Specifi Cation for Information Management for the Capital/delivery Phase of
Construction Projects Using Building Information Modelling, The British Standards Institution
Standards, London.
Burge, J.E. (2001), “Knowledge elicitation tool classification”, Artificial Intelligence Research Group,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Chong, H.Y. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2020), “Integrating advanced technologies to uphold security of
payment: data flow diagram”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 114, 103158.
Cooke, N.J. (1999), “Knowledge elicitation”, Handbook of Applied Cognition, pp. 479-509.
Coyne, R. and Onabolu, T. (2017), “Blockchain for architects: challenges from the sharing economy”,
Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 369-374.
Das, P., Perera, S., Senaratne, S. and Osei-Kyei, R. (2020), “Developing a construction business model
transformation canvas”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Dounas, T., Lombardi, D. and Jabi, W. (2020), “Framework for decentralised architectural design BIM and
Blockchain integration”, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 1478077120963376.
DynaWeb (2021), DynaWeb, available at: https://radumg.github.io/DynaWeb/ (accessed 28 January 2021).
Elghaish, F., Abrishami, S. and Hosseini, M.R. (2020), “Integrated project delivery with blockchain: an
automated financial system”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 114, 103182.
Elghaish, F., Rahimian, F.P., Hosseini, M.R., Edwards, D. and Shelbourn, M. (2022), “Financial
management of construction projects: hyperledger fabric and chaincode solutions”, Automation
in Construction, Vol. 137, 104185.
ECAM Felin, T. and Powell, T.C. (2016), “Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities”, California
Management Review, Vol. 58, pp. 78-96.
Finkelstein, S., Schkolnick, M. and Tiberio, P. (1988), “Physical database design for relational
databases”, ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), Vol. 13, pp. 91-128.
Ghannad, P., Lee, Y.C., Dimyadi, J. and Solihin, W. (2019), “Automated BIM data validation integrating
open-standard schema with visual programming language”, Advanced Engineering Informatics,
Vol. 40, pp. 14-28.
Government of Australia (2020), “National blockchain roadmap”, in Department of Industry, S., Energy
and Resources, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Australian Government.
Hamledari, H. and Fischer, M. (2021), “Role of blockchain-enabled smart contracts in automating
construction progress payments”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in
Engineering and Construction, Vol. 13, 04520038.
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, 03121005.
Hoffman, R.R. and Lintern, G. (2006), “Eliciting and representing the knowledge of experts”,
Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, pp. 203-222.
Hunhevicz, J.J., Motie, M. and Hall, D.M. (2022), “Digital building twins and blockchain for
performance-based (smart) contracts”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 133, 103981.
Hunt, K.D. and Betancur, J.D.T. (2016), Innovative Uses of BIM for Facility Management, Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Washington.
Hyperledger (2021), A Blockchain Platform for the Enterprise, available at: https://hyperledger-fabric.
readthedocs.io/en/release-2.2/index.html.
ISO (2018), “ISO 19650-1:2018 Organisation and digitisation of information about buildings and civil
engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM) – information management
using building information modelling – Part 1: concepts and principles”.
Kang, J. (2022), “Convergence analysis of BIM and blockchain technology in construction industry
informatization”, 2022 4th International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology
(ICSSIT), IEEE, pp. 256-259.
Kasie, F.M. (2013), “Combining simple multiple attribute rating technique and analytical hierarchy
process for designing multi-criteria performance measurement framework”, Global Journal of
Research in Engineering.
Koskinen, K.U. (2012), “Organizational learning in project-based companies: a process thinking
approach”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 40-49, doi: 10.1002/pmj.21266.
Lambert, S. (2005), “Do we need a’Real’Taxonomy of e-business models?”, School of Commerce,
Flinders University.
Li, J. and Kassem, M. (2021), “Applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and
Blockchain-enabled smart contracts in construction”, Automation in Construction,
Vol. 132, 103955.
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, 04021195.
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, p. 2090.
Mason, J. (2019), “BIM fork: are smart contracts in construction more likely to prosper with or without
BIM”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 11
No. 4, 02519002.
Mason, J. and Escott, H. (2018), “Smart contracts in construction: views and perceptions of Integrating
stakeholders”, 2018. Proceedings of FIG Conference, Istanbul.
BIM and
Mosley, M., Brackett, M.H., Earley, S. and Henderson, D. (2010), DAMA Guide to the Data
Management Body of Knowledge, Technics Publications, Vancouver.
blockchain
Nakamoto, S. (2008), “Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system”.
Nanayakkara, S., Rodrigo, M.N.N., Perera, S., Weerasuriya, G.T. and Hijazi, A.A. (2021), “A
methodology for selection of a blockchain platform to develop an enterprise system”, Journal of
Industrial Information Integration, 100215.
Nawari, N.O. (2020), “Blockchain technologies: hyperledger fabric in BIM work processes”,
International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Springer,
pp. 813-823.
NSW (2019), “Digital engineering standard Part 1 – concepts and principles”.
Pang, C. and Szafron, D. (2014), “Single source of truth (SSOT) for service oriented architecture
(SOA)”, International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Springer, pp. 575-589.
Penzes, B. (2018), Blockchain Technology in the construction industry; Digital Transformation for High
Productivity, London Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Perera, S., Nanayakkara, S., Rodrigo, M., Senaratne, S. and Weinand, R. (2020), “Blockchain
technology: is it hype or real in the construction industry?”, Journal of Industrial Information
Integration, Vol. 17, 100125.
Perera, S., Hijazi, A.A., Weerasuriya, G.T., Nanayakkara, S. and Rodrigo, M.N.N. (2021), “Blockchain-
based trusted property transactions in the built environment: development of an incubation-
ready prototype”, Buildings, Vol. 11, p. 560.
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,
2020, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 1174-1183.
Qing, L. and Yu-Liu, C. (2009), Modeling and Analysis of Enterprise and Information Systems, Beijing
Higher Education Press, Article in A Journal.
Rodrigo, M.N.N., Perera, S., Senaratne, S. and Jin, X. (2021), “Systematic development of a data model
for the blockchain-based embodied carbon (BEC) Estimator for construction”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management.
Sadeghi, M., Mahmoudi, A. and Deng, X. (2022), “Adopting distributed ledger technology for the
sustainable construction industry: evaluating the barriers using Ordinal Priority Approach”,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 29, pp. 10495-10520.
Salinas, J. and Prado, G. (2019), “Building information modeling (BIM) to manage design and
construction phases of Peruvian public projects5 Building information modeling (BIM) para la
gestion del dise~
no y construccion de proyectos p
ublicos peruanos”, Building and Management,
Vol. 3, pp. 48-59.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016), Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson
Education, Vol. 7, Harlow.
Tao, X., Das, M., Liu, Y. and Cheng, J.C. (2021), “Distributed common data environment using
blockchain and Interplanetary File System for secure BIM-based collaborative design”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 130, 103851.
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, 104172.
Thabet, W. and Lucas, J. (2017), “Asset data handover for a large educational institution: case-study
approach”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143, 05017017.
Vadgama, N. (2019), Distributed Ledger Technology in the Supply Chain, UCL Centre for Blockchain
Technologies, London.
ECAM Wieringa, R.J. (2014), Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering,
Springer, Berlin.
Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N.,
Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B. and Bourne, P.E. (2016), “The FAIR Guiding Principles for
scientific data management and stewardship”, Scientific Data, Vol. 3, pp. 1-9.
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, 103270.
Yin, R.K. (2017), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, Sage Publications,
New York.
Yitmen, I. and Alizadehsalehi, S. (2021), “Towards a digital twin-based smart built environment”,
BIM-Enabled Cognitive Computing for Smart Built Environment, pp. 21-44.
Zbrodoff, S. (2012), Pilot Projects – Making Innovations and New Concepts Fly, Project Management
Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Zheng, R., Jiang, J., Hao, X., Ren, W., Xiong, F. and Ren, Y. (2019), “bcBIM: a blockchain-based big data
model for BIM modification audit and provenance in mobile cloud”, Mathematical Problems in
Engineering.

Corresponding author
Amer A. Hijazi can be contacted at: a.hijazi@westernsydney.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats