The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2046-6099.htm

Determining the stationary digital Digital twin

implementation
twins implementation barriers for
sustainable construction projects
Saeed Reza Mohandes
Department of Engineering Management, School of Engineering,
The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Received 9 November 2023
Revised 13 January 2024
Atul Kumar Singh 2 March 2024
Accepted 10 March 2024
Department of Civil Engineering, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering,
Bengaluru, India and
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology,
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, India
Abdulwahed Fazeli
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architectural Science,
Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada and
Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran, Iran
Saeed Banihashemi
Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
Mehrdad Arashpour
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Clara Cheung and Obuks Ejohwomu
Department of Engineering Management, School of Engineering,
The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, and
Tarek Zayed
Department of Building and Real Estate, Faculty of Construction and Environment,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Abstract
Purpose – Previous research has demonstrated that Digital Twins (DT) are extensively employed to improve
sustainable construction methods. Nonetheless, their uptake in numerous nations is still constrained. This
study seeks to identify and examine the digital twin’s implementation barriers in construction building projects
to augment operational performance and sustainability.
Design/methodology/approach – An iterative two-stage approach was adopted to explore the phenomena
under investigation. General DT Implementation Barriers were first identified from extant literature and
subsequently explored using primary questionnaire survey data from Hong Kong building industry
professionals.
Findings – Survey results illustrated that Lack of methodologies and tools, Difficulty in ensuring a high level
of performance in real-time communication, Impossibility of directly measuring all data relevant to the DT,
need to share the DT among multiple application systems involving multiple stakeholders and Uncertainties in
the quality and reliability of data are the main barriers for adopting digital twins’ technology. Moreover, Ginni’s
mean difference measure of dispersion showed that the stationary digital twin’s barriers adoption is needed to
share the DT among multiple application systems involving multiple stakeholders.
Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment
This research is financially supported by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, under Project Number: © Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-6099
1-W15 K. DOI 10.1108/SASBE-11-2023-0344
SASBE Practical implications – The study’s findings offer valuable guidance to the construction industry. They
help stakeholders adopt digital twins’ technology, which, in turn, improves cost efficiency and sustainability.
This adoption reduces project expenses and enhances environmental responsibility, providing companies a
competitive edge in the industry.
Originality/value – This research rigorously explores barriers to Digital Twin (DT) implementation in the
Hong Kong construction industry, employing a systematic approach that includes a comprehensive literature
review, Ranking Analysis (RII) and Ginni’s coefficient of mean difference (GM). With a tailored focus on Hong
Kong, the study aims to identify, analyze and provide novel insights into DT implementation challenges.
Emphasizing practical relevance, the research bridges the gap between academic understanding and real-
world application, offering actionable solutions for industry professionals, policymakers and researchers. This
multifaceted contribution enhances the feasibility and success of DT implementation in construction projects
within the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sector.
Keywords Digital twins, Sustainability, Sustainable development, Construction projects, Project success
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In recent years, various technological advancements, including information technology,
machine learning, artificial intelligence and data analysis techniques, along with the advent
of Industry 4.0, have significantly influenced numerous industries, giving rise to
revolutionary business models (Kumar et al., 2023). A prominent component of Industry
4.0 is the implementation of technologies such as the digital twin (DT) (Sun et al., 2020). While
the aviation industry was the pioneering sector to adopt DT, its application has since
expanded across diverse fields, encompassing construction, healthcare, industrial
manufacturing, aviation, automobiles, meteorology, education and the development of
smart cities (Zhang et al., 2021).
The construction industry’s receptivity to technological advancements hinges on
addressing underlying challenges (Hajirasouli et al., 2022). In addition to issues such as poor
industry image, predictability and structural fragmentation, the sector grapples with low
productivity and a notable absence of research and development (R&D) and innovation (Perno
et al., 2022a, b). Notwithstanding these challenges, the integration of predictive analytics has
shown promise in enhancing construction productivity, while the implementation of DT
technology presents opportunities to mitigate various industry challenges (Lee et al., 2021).
Simulation techniques, a well-established practice across industries like aerospace,
construction, automotive and oil, have been employed for decades (Sampaio et al., 2010).
Although the real-time simulation aspect of DT unlocks diverse applications, it remains rooted
in traditional simulation techniques (Dur~ao et al., 2018). Notably, literature on process industries
has garnered increased attention, with a focus on various sectors such as pharmaceuticals, food,
cement, steel and petrochemicals, each exhibiting distinct production characteristics (Asadi
et al., 2021; Wishnow et al., 2020)DT technology facilitates the redesign and performance
evaluation of physical objects (Stanke et al., 2020). During the construction phase, online
monitoring, planning and control are implemented, while fault detection and state monitoring
take precedence during the service phase (Rolle et al., 2019). However, the authors note a lack of
adequate consideration for the life cycle of projects in the information flow (Lee et al., 2019). To
address this, a comprehensive six-dimensional classification scheme was developed,
encompassing construction sectors, purposes, physical reference objects, completeness,
creation time and connectivity (Sepasgozar et al., 2021). Notably, the integration of physical
objects into virtual spaces distinguishes the internet of Things from other emerging
technologies. Comparative and analytical studies on digital twin models have been extensively
conducted in the scientific literature, with the authors retracing the evolution of the initial model
to the current literature model (Herath and Mittal, 2022). Despite this evolution, recent research
still primarily relies on DT for model implementation, emphasizing specific tasks conducted
using DT methods. A thorough review of research on digital twins by Perno et al. (2022a, b)
delves into the current status and applications in specific industries, highlighting the integral Digital twin
components of modeling, data fusion, collaboration and service. implementation
The pervasive use of DT technology spans various industry phases, encompassing design,
production, prognostics and health management (Stanke et al., 2020). To explore DT applications
in the construction sector, we conducted a comprehensive literature review, categorizing existing
studies based on their degree of integration, as outlined by Min et al. (2020). Within this realm,
digital models, shadow models and twin models were identified as distinct categories. Critical
enablers for DT include IoT, Cloud Computing and Big Data, along with Industry 4.0
technologies (Platenius-Mohr et al., 2019). Simulations, communication protocols and related
technologies in this category encompass discrete event simulations, continuous simulations and
OPC-UA (Deng et al., 2022). As part of our study, we delved into the scientific literature to
comprehend how DT operates within the context of Industry 4.0 (Kaewunruen and Xu, 2018).
Originating in aerospace, DT has evolved for construction applications, with a focus on
emphasizing its benefits and defining its role, as highlighted by Nikolakis et al. (2019).
The application of DT technology in assessing health conditions, planning maintenance
activities and enhancing decision-making is discussed through three primary avenues: lifecycle
management, engineering improvements and numerical analysis (M^eda et al., 2021). Readers,
aiming for a deeper comprehension of established concepts, categorization of existing literature
and insights into the lifecycle perspective of applications, can propose future research
directions based on the presented results. The definition of the product is enriched with function
modeling, domain-specific modeling and simulation, as highlighted by Lu et al. (2020). During
the product realization stage, DT emerges as a lifecycle-based approach, addressing
unexpected events, integrating products with services and facilitating continuous
monitoring operations for service and maintenance, as elucidated by Bauer et al. (2019).
Based on the past studies, a conspicuous research gap is evident in the specialized domain
of DT within the construction industry, particularly concerning the integration of DT
applications for sustainable construction projects. While existing literature has extensively
covered general barriers to DT implementation, there remains a discernible void in the
comprehensive analysis of challenges unique to the assimilation of environmentally
sustainable digital twin technologies in construction. This research paper aims to address
this critical gap by meticulously exploring and elucidating the specific barriers that impede
the effective implementation of DT implementation within the context of sustainable
construction projects, thereby contributing novel insights to the existing body of knowledge.
To address this gap, the research questions are formulated as follows:
RQ1. What are the barriers influencing the implementation of DT in the implementation
of sustainable construction projects?
RQ2. How can the identified barriers be categorized and prioritized to enhance the
understanding of their impact on the DT implementation for sustainable
construction projects?
To answer these questions, the following objectives are outlined:
RO1. To identify the barriers influencing the DT implementation for sustainable
construction projects.
RO2. To categorize and prioritize the identified barriers influencing the DT
implementation for sustainable construction projects, providing a comprehensive
understanding of their impact.
This research undertakes a rigorous exploration of barriers to DT implementation within the
construction industry. Employing a meticulous approach, the study integrates a systematic
literature review, a Ranking Analysis (RII) and Ginni’s coefficient of mean difference (GM) to
SASBE address key research questions. The significance of this study lies in its tailored focus on the
Hong Kong construction landscape, offering a nuanced understanding of the challenges
hindering DT implementation in this specific context.
The anticipated outcomes of this research hold substantial significance as they aim to
identify, analyze and provide novel insights into the barriers shaping DT implementation in the
construction sector. The study’s multifaceted contribution offers valuable perspectives for
organizations, professionals and decision-makers within the Architecture, Engineering and
Construction (AEC) sector. For AEC organizations, the research provides crucial insights into
DT implementation challenges, aiding in strategic decision-making, resource allocation and
project planning. Professionals in the AEC sector can leverage the findings for ongoing
professional development, staying abreast of the latest challenges and solutions in construction
technology. Policymakers benefit by gaining insights that inform decisions on regulations and
policies, fostering the effective integration of DT applications and contributing to economic and
technological development. Industry stakeholders, including investors and technology
providers, can identify investment opportunities and collaborative ventures by understanding
the barriers to DT implementation. In essence, this study serves as a comprehensive and context-
specific resource, advancing knowledge and guiding practical implementations in the
construction technology field, benefiting professionals, organizations, and policymakers.

2. Literature review
2.1 Past studies on DT application in construction
Described as a combination of static and dynamic BIM models, DT performs building
maintenance and operations. To monitor and control the construction of projects,
Construction Management workflows use DT, semantic web technologies, the internet of
Things, sensors and artificial intelligence (AI). Similarly, DT can bridge the gap between the
cyber (i.e. virtual) and physical (i.e. physical) models. Bridges connecting cyberspace to the
physical world differ in their nature, however. Since the DT can predict the future state of
the physical model, passive control is possible. CPSs use passive or active mechanisms to
control the physical system’s state through the cyber model (Wang and Wang, 2019).
In a comprehensive review, several researchers examined the DT concept and its comparison
with BIM from multiple perspectives. Although their concepts differ, the industry needs both
BIM and DT. The construction industry was examined to determine whether BIM and DT are
related. The first level of BIM consists of planning and scheduling construction, while the
second level consists of conceptualizing BIM in conjunction with simulations to estimate costs
and manage facilities. The third level enables real-time tracking and modeling through IoT
technologies, while the fourth level enables real-time monitoring and visual imaging by
integrating artificial intelligence technologies (Zhou et al., 2020). To increase the complexity and
interconnection of DT, Atkins developed a maturity spectrum. Their report explains that a DT
can be built at any point in the project lifecycle, beginning with reality capture and data
collection (element 0), then creating 2D maps and systems (element 1) to simulate the
construction process. This static set contains various asset management data, design
information, specifications and inspection reports derived from Element 1. Element 2 refers to
maintaining, operating and decommissioning a project after it has been planned. Sensors and
the internet of Things can transfer data between physical and digital assets. Predictive asset
performance and a support system for making decisions are included in Element 3. To facilitate
autonomous operations and maintenance of physical and digital assets, elements 4 and 5
employ artificial intelligence and advanced algorithms (Arrichiello and Gualeni, 2020).
The use of DT on construction sites improves worker productivity, increases worker safety,
increases health and safety levels and improves efficiency. Researchers used a digital twin to
describe how they monitor and diagnose an asset’s condition. They also made preventive
predictions based on data gathered from multiple sources, such as sensor data, historical data Digital twin
and simulations. BIM and DT applications are compared in this article. The team examined how implementation
digital twins can be used in the built environment and their visions and benefits. This paper
discusses the use of BIM in buildings, including visualizing design consistency, detecting
clashes, implementing lean construction and estimating time and cost (Borodulin et al., 2017).
DT systems enable an analysis of what-if scenarios, enhancing user comfort, optimizing
resource consumption and closing design loops. Various sensors produce real-time digital twins
derived from BIM data (Stark et al., 2019). A recent research study categorizes construction
applications by their stage of implementation. BIM is heavily used in the design and planning
phases, while DT is mainly used during construction and operation. Incorporating BIM, DT and
LOD interchangeably should be done without duplicating effort (Qiao et al., 2019).
The proposed framework for managing and monitoring construction sites with DT uses
BIM details, digital representations, IoT, databases and other enabling technologies. This
allows them to interact with the existing construction site. WiFi, wireless sensor networks
(WSNs), 5G and low-power wireless LANs are IoT-enabled technologies that can support the
implementation of digital twins in the construction industry (Stanke et al., 2020). DT can
simulate building construction, energy consumption and emergency scenarios for predicting
preventive maintenance and building status. Further, machine learning can be applied to
parameters such as occupant comfort, which requires ground data. A DT also allows
developers to make data-driven decisions regarding building energy efficiency and thermal
comfort, using real-time data collected during construction. Another researcher developed
the SPHERE platform. It provides integrated data about residential buildings to citizens,
construction stakeholders, city officials and developers for improving their design,
construction and performance. This platform aims to enhance residential buildings’ energy
performance and design to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve residential
buildings’ environmental impact (Hasan et al., 2020).
Despite numerous studies exploring DT frameworks and platforms, the construction
industry has yet to explore their direct application. Building assets such as pumps and HVAC
systems can be monitored through sensors attached to a digital twin system. Pumps or
HVAC systems can be monitored for vibration frequencies using these applications. The
proposed model incorporated a variety of data sources, allowing stakeholders to share
information more quickly (Evangeline and Anandhakumar, 2020). In addition to studying the
structural integrity of various structural members using DT, a 3D model of the Cathedral of
Milan was developed to investigate its response under various conditions. The DT model
allows future researchers to observe past structural failures to take preventative
maintenance measures (Broo and Schooling, 2021).
Wearable sensors, VIVE Trackers, machine learning and virtual reality can also be used
to train construction workers to prevent injuries. With sensors and IoT technologies, the DT
framework was able to assess the level of construction material in silos and support the
digital supply chain. This model lets planners reposition and track silos in real-time, reducing
construction materials, transportation costs and construction schedules. DT is also gaining
popularity among construction professionals (Tao et al., 2019). The Centre for Digital Built
Britain (CDBB) is creating digital twins of physical assets as part of National Digital Twins
(NDTs). Building SMART International created the DT Working Group (DTWG) in 2020,
whose mission is to define and unlock the value of DT in the social, environmental and
societal arenas. According to the European Commission, CBIM would increase BIM’s
utilization for digitizing the built environment in 2020. DT can be produced and automated
with the help of Commercial Building Information Modelling. A Global Data report published
in 2021 called “DT in Oil and Gas-Thematic Research” indicates that DT are increasingly
used in the oil and gas sector (Cimino et al., 2019).
SASBE 2.2 DT and overall sustainable success (OSS)
Digitization has been the fulcrum of researchers and practitioners for promoting the three
pillars of sustainability (economics, environment and social). DT in the civil and infrastructure
sectors has attempted to improve these pillars in several ways. The primary contributor to
carbon footprint is embodied material emissions, especially during manufacturing. The
reconstruction stage of the life cycle has the highest costs (Tagliabue et al., 2021). Those
responsible for engineering, project management, technical support and senior management
will benefit significantly from the information. DT was clarified by defining 3D models as
distinct from other advanced modeling technologies, digital shadows and computer systems
(Kaewunruen et al., 2020). We will also discuss future research directions and review technology
development. The recommendation post-COVID-19 includes DT applications, such as real-time
decision-making, remote supervision and self-monitoring (Preuveneers et al., 2018).
A circular economy can be achieved by incorporating these concepts. A digital twin
construction (DTC) begins with digital data preparation (DDT) and ends with digital built data
(DBL). It is possible to set aside misconceptions or confrontations between these three solutions to
gain a data-driven priority. We developed the “Digital data-driven concept” (D3C) to reduce
misconceptions and increase understanding. Show how a 3D model of King’s Cross station has
been transformed and adapted to a 6D building information model (Dur~ao et al., 2018). Construction
participants can benefit from this study’s findings by using it as a guideline for planning, designing
and operating environmentally friendly railway station projects. A new tier of digital twins will be
presented based on the successful application of digital PED twins: (1) enhanced versions of BIM
models, (2) semantic platforms for data flows and (3) a systematic approach to data analytics and
feedback. Additionally, there are many opportunities for improvement in data analysis, semantic
interoperability, business models, security and data management. The review results will allow for
the optimization of DT for sustainability (Shao and Helu, 2020).
Critical factors such as deterministic transactions, widespread devices and
standardization must be considered in designing and implementing a DT. The proposed
reference model addresses technological and organizational aspects. This can help identify,
detect and develop corrective actions affecting operator safety, maintenance and operating
costs and improve the company’s business in general (Wang et al., 2019). Following this
report, carbon emissions and cost estimates are benchmarked at every stage of the project’s
life cycle. The construction phase accounted for approximately 78% of the project’s overall
costs. Operation and maintenance of buildings produce more carbon dioxide than the
production of building materials (Lee et al., 2019).
A coding approach and cluster analysis were used to analyze the transcriptions. Adopters
must deal with two main challenges related to cluster analysis to adopt lean and BIM.
As proposed, DT and the internet of Things (IoT) can replace static sustainability
assessments. This revolutionary approach enables real-time evaluation and control of
sustainability criteria based on user input. The framework was tested on some sample
applications in the UX lab at the University of Brescia (Kaewunruen and Xu, 2018).
DT and life cycle analyses can be applied to determine embodied carbon in buildings.
The method has two advantages over other LCA methods: (1) it performs cradle-to-cradle
analyses, and (2) it communicates data between LCAs and BIM databases in an automated
manner. Data collected through DT is consistent across the life cycle of a process, allowing for
credible results throughout the life cycle. A conceptual framework has been developed based
on an extensive literature review (Opoku et al., 2021).

2.3 Research gap

This study strategically addresses a distinct void in the existing literature by focusing on the
intricate challenges surrounding the implementation of DT within the Hong Kong building
industry. The identified gaps pertain to a scarcity of empirical studies investigating barriers Digital twin
specific to the Hong Kong context and an insufficient exploration of practical implementation
recommendations for overcoming these obstacles. Notably, the dearth of research on the
hurdles hindering DT integration in the building and construction sector, particularly within
the unique dynamics of Hong Kong, underscores the novelty and relevance of this study.
By unraveling these specific challenges and proposing tailored recommendations, this
research aims to significantly contribute to the existing body of knowledge, offering valuable
insights that bridge crucial gaps in empirical studies and practical guidance within the Hong
Kong context. Table 1 compiles the DT implementation barriers drawn from prior studies.

3. Research methodology
This research aims to identify stationary DT implementation barriers. To achieve this,
a systematic literature review was conducted, and data were collected by distributing 150
questionnaires to stakeholders, with 108 returned. The study employed mean ratings, RII and
GM for data analysis to identify and prioritize critical barriers. Figure 1 illustrates this
study’s research framework.

3.1 Identification of barriers

Identifying DT implementation barriers followed a meticulous methodology, integrating a
systematic literature review (SLR) and a structured categorization approach (Singh et al.,
2023a, b, c, d). The SLR employed a thorough search strategy across prominent databases—
such as IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect and PubMed—utilizing keywords like “Digital Twins,”
“Construction Projects,” and “Implementation Barriers.” The outcomes of this literature
review, highlighting the identified barriers, are systematically presented in Table 1.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria prioritized English-language publications within a specified
timeframe, focusing on primary research articles, reviews and case studies (Dewagoda et al.,
2022). Thematic analyses were applied to discern recurring patterns and barriers related to
DT implementation in construction projects. Subsequently, a systematic categorization
method, informed by emerging themes and existing frameworks, was employed to organize
the identified barriers into a cohesive structure (Amoozad Mahdiraji et al., 2023). This
approach ensured a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted barriers faced in DT
implementation within the construction context.

3.2 Data collection

A systematic approach was employed to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the
significance of barriers to DT implementation in construction projects. Prior to the main
study, a pilot research phase was conducted to assess the questionnaire’s utility, coherence
and comprehensiveness (Svendsen et al., 2020; Waqar et al., 2023a, b). This step is vital to
ensure that the study’s objectives are met, as emphasized by Kineber et al. (2023).
The minimum sample size for the pilot research was determined to be 10 participants (Daoud
et al., 2023). To enhance data reliability, the research initiated with a pilot test involving 20
potential respondents, aligning with the recommendation by Waqar et al. (2023a, b). The pilot
survey demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.867, surpassing the suggested threshold
of 0.6 (Tan et al., 2023). This iterative process aimed to gather feedback on the clarity,
comprehensibility and effectiveness of the survey questions, thus guaranteeing the
instrument’s reliability in capturing the nuanced perspectives of participants on DT
implementation (Kallio et al., 2016). The internal consistency of the pilot questionnaire,
assessing participant responses on barriers to DT implementation in construction projects,
was measured using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. This statistical measure, ranging from 0 to
SASBE Main barriers Code Sub-barriers

System integration SI1 Lack of system integration

issues SI2 Difficulty in ensuring interoperability
SI3 Compatibility between new and legacy systems
SI4 Difficulty of integrating legacy manufacturing systems with modern IoT service
ecosystems
Security issues S1 Difficulty in ensuring data transparency
S2 Difficulty in ensuring protection of intellectual property
S3 Need to share the DTW among multiple application systems involving multiple
stakeholders
Performance issues P1 Difficulty in ensuring a high level of performance in real-time communication
P2 Difficulty in ensuring efficient storage, processing and analysis of large volumes of
data
P3 Difficulty in ensuring a proficient interaction between the digital and physical
assets
P4 Difficulty in ensuring reliability and robustness
P5 Difficulty in ensuring low latency communication, tracking and reporting
P6 Difficulty in predicting complex systems
P7 Difficulty in ensuring the availability of relevant data for DTW when needed
P8 Difficulty in ensuring a satisfactory level of accuracy
P9 Ability to track machine status and usage, also when no Internet connection is
available
P10 Discovering and retrieving data from the IoT
P11 Difficulty in ensuring proper scalability
P12 Difficulty in ensuring flexibility and modularity
P13 High expected timeliness for DTW development and implementation
P14 Risk of overfilling bandwidth
P15 Difficulty of finding a balance between enough (and relevant) information and
overwhelming (irrelevant) information
Organizational issues O1 Bureaucracy, cultural inertia and knowledge assessment
O2 Lack of specialists and expertise
O3 Difficulty in ensuring centralization, simplification and standardization
O4 Difficulty in setting realistic expectations and trust
O5 Difficulty in identifying clear value propositions associated with DTW solutions
O6 Lack of investments
O7 Difficulty in making suitable decisions and investments regarding the enabling
technologies
Data quality issues D1 Isolated, fragmented and stagnant data management
D2 Difficulty in combining product lifecycle management, manufacturing execution
system and operation management systems
D3 Uncertainties in the quality and reliability of data
D4 Data unavailability
D5 Difficulty in ensuring data validity
D6 Difficulty in ensuring data governance, ownership and management
D7 Impossibility of directly measuring all data relevant for the DTW
Environmental issues E1 Lack of methodologies and tools
E2 Low maturity of literature and practical industrial implementations of DTWs
E3 Global advancements
E4 Difficulty in choosing the right software among a vast selection of open-source
software
E5 Global connectivity
E6 Lack of high-fidelity models for simulation and virtual testing at multiple scales
E7 Multi-disciplinarily of environments for design and development
E8 Lack of education on the topic at universities
Table 1. E9 High degree of heterogeneity in equipment manufacturers and their software
Digital twins solutions
implementation Note(s): Adapted from Perno et al. (2022a, b)
barriers Source(s): Table by authors
 Extensive
Digital twin
Literature review implementation

Questionnaire survey
development and
distributions

Ranking analysis (RII)

Determination of
critical barriers

Stationary analysis

Discussion

Conclusion and
recommendation
Figure 1.
Research framework
Source(s): Figure by authors

1, ensures reliability and consistency in Likert scale testing techniques. The interpretation of
Cronbach’s alpha values categorizes consistency into Excellent (α ≥ 0.9), Good (0.8 ≤ α < 0.9),
Acceptable (0.7 ≤ α < 0.8), Questionable (0.6 ≤ α < 0.7) and Poor (α < 0.6) levels. For the pilot
sample, the total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.94, indicating remarkable
consistency and reliability in capturing participants’ perspectives on the significance of
barriers to DT implementation in construction projects.
To explore barriers to DT implementation in construction projects within the context of
Hong Kong, a random probability sampling method was employed. This approach ensures
that any professional in the Hong Kong building industry has an equal chance of being
selected, contributing to the study’s reliability and accuracy of responses (Shardeo et al.,
2020). As emphasized by Kineber et al. (2022), the determination of the sample size in research
is guided by the objectives of the analysis. In this context, the RII, and the GM method
suggests a recommended sample size of 100 cases or more (Kineber et al., 2023).
Following the pilot test, the structured questionnaire comprising three sections was
administered to a targeted sample of 150 participants—the initial section collected
demographic information to comprehensively understand the sample’s characteristics
(Karasu et al., 2022). The second section utilized a 5-point Likert scale to quantitatively
measure perceived barriers to DT implementation, aligning with established survey research
practices (Singh et al., 2023a, b, c, d). Simultaneously, the third section gathered open-ended
responses to extract additional qualitative insights into essential barriers, complementing the
quantitative data with a richer understanding (Lydon et al., 2021).
SASBE The survey’s strategic sample size, consisting of 108 completed and returned
questionnaires, resulted in a commendable response rate of 70.8%, further validating the
survey’s effectiveness in engaging participants and enhancing the credibility of the study’s
findings (Abdul et al., 2023). The collected data underwent systematic analysis, combining
both quantitative Likert scale ratings and qualitative open-ended responses. Mean scores
were computed to determine the central tendency of Likert scale data, providing an average
rating for each identified barrier. Figure 2 shows the demographic details of the participants.

3.3 Data analysis

This study employs a robust data analysis strategy, incorporating mean ratings, the RII, and
the GM to assess the significance of barriers to DT implementation. Mean ratings provide a
straightforward measure of central tendency, offering average scores for each identified
barrier. RII enhances the analysis by providing a nuanced assessment of the relative
importance of these barriers. Additionally, GM is integrated to measure the variability in
responses, contributing to a deeper understanding of consensus or divergence among
respondents. To enhance transparency, it’s important to note that these specific methods
were chosen for their effectiveness in capturing both central tendency and relative
importance. Mean ratings offer a clear average perspective, RII allows for a ranked
assessment and GM provides insights into variability. The advantages of these methods lie in
their ability to offer a comprehensive understanding of the barriers’ significance, enriching
the study’s findings with valuable insights into the challenges associated with DT
implementation in the surveyed context.

Figure 2.
Demographic details of
the participants
3.4 Relative importance index (RII) Digital twin
The chosen methodology integrates mean scores and the RII to analyze Likert scale data, implementation
ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the significance of barriers to DT
implementation (Kineber et al., 2022). Mean scores offer a straightforward measure of
central tendency, providing an average rating for each barrier based on survey responses.
This statistical approach helps distill the collective perception of respondents regarding
the barriers, offering a baseline understanding of their overall significance (Oke
et al., 2023).
Incorporating RII, a statistical method widely endorsed in the literature adds depth to
the analysis. RII is particularly valuable for ranking various factors, offering a nuanced
assessment of the relative importance of each barrier. This method aligns with established
practices in the field, as evidenced by its utilization in rating and assessing factors in
previous research studies (Henseler et al., 2016). The combination of mean scores and RII
ensures a robust and multifaceted analysis, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of
the perceived importance of DT implementation barriers within the surveyed population.
In earlier studies, the reactions’ frequency and intensity were measured using
Equation (1):
P
w 5n5 þ 4n4 þ 3n3 þ 2n2 þ1n1
RII ¼ ¼ (1)
A3N 53N
Where W is the participant-assigned weight for each characteristic, A is the maximum weight
and N is the total number of participants. Based on these variables, Table 2 reports the RII
scores. The relative importance of the criteria, as seen by participating consultants,
contractors and owners, is cross-computed using the rankings.
3.4.1 Stationary analysis (Ginni’s mean). The introduction of GM is essential for
providing a nuanced understanding of the study’s objectives. GM is a critical analytical
tool to assess the spread or variability in responses, offering insights into the consensus or
divergence among respondents regarding the identified barriers to DT implementation.
The current study follows the approach by (Kineber et al., 2022) and adopts Ginni’s Mean
Difference Measure of Dispersion and Weighted Geometric Mean as measures of
variability. By quantifying the mean difference, GM contributes to the overall analysis of
the barriers’ dispersion, highlighting areas of agreement or disagreement among
respondents. This measure becomes particularly relevant in deciphering the collective
perception of the significance of barriers, thus enriching the study’s findings with a deeper
understanding of the diverse perspectives within the surveyed population. The steps of
this methodology are as follows: “(1) determining the mean of dispersion of the RII
numbers through the application of GM of dispersion as shown in Equation (2)” (Oke
et al., 2021):
G
G:M ¼ (2)
M
Where: GM: Ginni’s mean difference measure of dispersion; G: the summation of the
differences in the value of all possible pairs of variables and M: the total number of
differences, where N is the number of variables:
NðN  1Þ
M¼ (3)
2
Then, the weight for each RII number is based on the calculated Ginni’s mean difference
measure of dispersion through the application of Equation (4) (Oke et al., 2021):
SASBE Obstacles RII Level of importance Rank

D4 0.975 H 1
S3 0.937 H 2
D3 0.931 H 3
S2 0.88 H 4
O6 0.829 H 5
S1 0.82 H 6
E8 0.796 H-M 7
E1 0.792 H-M 8
D5 0.781 H-M 9
O2 0.767 H-M 10
O1 0.759 H-M 11
O7 0.75 H-M 12
P12 0.74 H-M 13
SI1 0.67 H-M 14
D7 0.667 H-M 15
SI2 0.66 H-M 16
P3 0.65 H-M 17
D1 0.64 H-M 18
O3 0.63 H-M 19
D2 0.624 H-M 20
P11 0.611 H-M 21
P13 0.6 H-M 22
D6 0.595 M 23
E7 0.59 M 24
E6 0.58 M 25
P5 0.57 M 26
E9 0.56 M 27
P2 0.537 M 28
P1 0.483 M 29
O4 0.47 M 30
P15 0.465 M 31
SI4 0.46 M 32
O5 0.446 M 33
P4 0.44 M 34
P10 0.438 M 35
E2 0.435 M 36
E3 0.425 M 37
P14 0.42 M 38
E5 0.418 M 39
P7 0.415 M 40
SI3 0.41 M 41
P9 0.4 M 42
P6 0.29 M-L 43
E4 0.246 M-L 44
Table 2. P8 0.212 M-L 45
RII for DT technology Source(s): Table by authors

RIIi
Wi ¼ G:M 3 (4)
RII1
Where: Wi: the weight of each RII number, RIIi: the relative index number of any cause, and
RII1: is the highest relative index number specifying the weighted geometric mean (GM (w)) of
the RII numbers to represent the stationary central value and fit on the RII calibration to reflect Digital twin
the stationary success factors for adopting cyber technology (see Equation (5)) (Oke et al., 2021): implementation
P
w:logRII
G : M : ðwÞ ¼ Antilog P (5)
w
P
Where w: is the sum of the weights assigned to the RII numbers.

4. Results
4.1 Consistency of the collected data
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.753, above the set upper limit of 0.70 (Singh et al.,
2023a, b, c, d). As a result, the information gleaned from the questionnaires met the criteria for
internal consistency and was accepted as trustworthy and valid for use in the analysis.

4.2 Relative importance index (RII)

The study identified 45 barriers to adopting DT (from the literature reviewed). The SPSS
program entered the survey data and performed the RII method analysis. The RII range is
between 0 and 1, with 0 not included. The more significant the RII value, and vice versa, the
more influential the barriers. Kineber et al. (2022), mention the transformation matrix as an
evaluation of RII with the related level of significance and derived level of importance from
RII, with the following interpretations of the results: (see Table 3)
According to the respondents, the most significant DT Implementation Barriers are Lack of
methodologies and tools, Difficulty in ensuring a high level of performance in real-time
communication, Impossibility of directly measuring all data relevant to the DT, need to share
the DT among multiple application systems involving multiple stakeholders and Uncertainties
in the quality and reliability of data are the main barriers for adopting DT technology (Figure 3).

4.3 Stationary DT barriers

By using the RII scores of each barrier (Table 2), Ginni’s coefficient of mean difference for
these values can be determined. To determine GM, the summation of the differences in the
scores of all possible pairs of variables (G) is selected. The calculations of the differences of all
possible pairs of RII scores are presented in Table 4. The summation of the differences in the
scores of all possible pairs of variables (G) is 209.12, and the total number of differences
P (M) is
990 (Table
P 4). Using Equation (2), the GM is 0.2112. Further, as shown in Table 5, w 5 5.79
and w. Log RII 5 0.3207. Consequently, the weighted geometric mean GM (w) is 0.880.
This score on the RII calibration, as shown in Table 4, equals the RII number of S2.
Accordingly, this barrier is considered the stationary barrier for adopting DT.

5. Discussion
According to the results, Data unavailability, Uncertainty in the quality and reliability of data
and difficulty in ensuring data validity are considered the first, third and ninth top hurdles

High (H) 0.8 < RII < 1.0

High-Medium (H-M) 0.6 < RII < 0.8
Medium (M) 0.4 < RII < 0.6 Table 3.
Medium-Low (M-L) 0.2 < RII < 0.4 RII and level of
Low (L) 0.0 < RII < 0.2 significance
SASBE Series1 Series2 Series3

1
44 451 2 3
43 4
42 5
41 0.8 6
40 7
39 0.6 8
38 9
0.4
37 10
36 0.2 11
35 0 12
34 13
33 14
32 15
31 16
30 17
29 18
28 19
27 20
Figure 3. 26 25 21
24 23 22
RII for DT technology
Source(s): Figure by authors

against green DT implementation. These findings are unsurprising as data is the backbone of
digital twin implementation Opoku et al. (2023). This is consistent with the results of Ubina
et al. (2023), who highlighted data unavailability and scarcity of data quality measurements
as essential concerns in manufacturing systems that are part of the DT. According to Min
et al. (2020), data unavailability and the possibility of data being stolen can effectively hinder
the development of DT. Zhang et al. (2022)emphasized the importance of data availability and
quality to ensure an efficient data stream during DT implementation. According to Rasheed
et al. (2020),data quality can be provided by data preprocessing algorithms like Restricted
Boltzmann Machine and Generative Adversarial Networks. Fuller et al. (2020) emphasized the
importance of sorting, cleaning and organizing data before implementing an AI algorithm on
the data. This can ensure the constant flow of data during digital twin implementation. Poor
data quality can also risk privacy and security issues as cyber-attackers and intruders can be
more vulnerable to being breached.
The second, fourth and sixth most significant obstacles for the green digital twin
application are the need to share the DT among multiple application systems involving
various stakeholders and the difficulty in ensuring the protection of intellectual property and
data transparency, respectively. These barriers are more related to privacy and security
issues, which involve all risks related to data exchange, acquisition, processing and storage
(Kaiser et al., 2022). As DT generate a cyber-physical connected environment for an asset
(Matheus et al., 2023), it requires exchanging data with different stakeholders (Lu et al., 2020).
Providing authorization, authentication and access control for stored data may raise the risk
of security and intellectual property issues (Zhang et al., 2022). It also increases the risk of
outside parties misusing data (Javed et al., 2020). Therefore, transparency and credibility of
data should be ensured (Rasheed et al., 2020). Fuller et al. (2020), echoed this in the paper, who
indicated the need to establish laws and regulations against privacy and security issues.
Ubina et al. (2023) emphasized the need for a system for early detection of cyber-attacks like
phishing and hacking during DT implementation, while others like Rasheed et al. (2020)
suggest using blockchain as the best solution for privacy and security problems.
Lack of investment is ranked as the fifth top barrier. As DT requires higher infrastructure
and costly technologies, many companies lack incentives to implement them in their projects.
Rank Barriers RII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1.0 D4 1.0 0.8

2.0 S3 0.9 0.7 0.7
3.0 D3 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7
4.0 S2 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7
5.0 O6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
6.0 S1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
7.0 E8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
8.0 E1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6
9.0 D5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
10.0 O2 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
11.0 O1 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
12.0 O7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
13.0 P12 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
14.0 SI1 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
15.0 D7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
16.0 SI2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
17.0 P3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
18.0 D1 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
19.0 O3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
20.0 D2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
21.0 P11 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
22.0 P13 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
23.0 D6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4
24.0 E7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
25.0 E6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
26.0 P5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
27.0 E9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
28.0 P2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
29.0 P1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
30.0 O4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
31.0 P15 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
32.0 SI4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

(continued )

Differences of all
Table 4.

numbers
possible pairs of RII
implementation
Digital twin
 Table 4.
SASBE
Rank Barriers RII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

33.0 O5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
34.0 P4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
35.0 P10 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
36.0 E2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
37.0 E3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
38.0 P14 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
39.0 E5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
40.0 P7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
41.0 SI3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
42.0 P9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
43.0 P6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
44.0 E4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45.0 P8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sum 17.1 15.4 15.1 13.0 10.9 10.5 9.6 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.3 8.0 7.6 5.4 5.3 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.1 1.6 3.5

Rank Barriers 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Sum

1.0 D4 0.8
2.0 S3 1.5
3.0 D3 2.1
4.0 S2 2.6
5.0 O6 3.0
6.0 S1 3.4
7.0 E8 3.8
8.0 E1 4.1
9.0 D5 4.5
10.0 O2 4.8
11.0 O1 5.2
12.0 O7 5.5
13.0 P12 5.8
14.0 SI1 6.0

(continued )
Rank Barriers 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Sum

15.0 D7 6.2
16.0 SI2 6.4
17.0 P3 6.5
18.0 D1 6.6
19.0 O3 6.7
20.0 D2 6.8
21.0 P11 6.8
22.0 P13 6.8
23.0 D6 0.4 6.8
24.0 E7 0.3 0.4 6.8
25.0 E6 0.3 0.3 0.4 6.8
26.0 P5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 6.7
27.0 E9 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 6.6
28.0 P2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 6.5
29.0 P1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 6.4
30.0 O4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 6.2
31.0 P15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 6.0
32.0 SI4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.8
33.0 O5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.5
34.0 P4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.2
35.0 P10 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.8
36.0 E2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.5
37.0 E3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 4.1
38.0 P14 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.8
39.0 E5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.4
40.0 P7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.0
41.0 SI3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.6
42.0 P9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.1
43.0 P6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.5
44.0 E4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8
45.0 P8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sum 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 ###
Source(s): Table by authors

Table 4.
implementation
Digital twin
SASBE Criterion RII Wi Log RII Wi. Log RII

D4 0.98 0.21 0.01 0.00

S3 0.94 0.20 0.03 0.01
D3 0.93 0.20 0.03 0.01
S2 0.84 0.18 0.08 0.01
O6 0.83 0.18 0.08 0.01
S1 0.82 0.18 0.09 0.02
E8 0.80 0.17 0.10 0.02
E1 0.79 0.17 0.10 0.02
D5 0.78 0.17 0.11 0.02
O2 0.77 0.17 0.12 0.02
O1 0.76 0.16 0.12 0.02
O7 0.75 0.16 0.12 0.02
P12 0.74 0.16 0.13 0.02
SI1 0.67 0.15 0.17 0.03
D7 0.67 0.14 0.18 0.03
SI2 0.66 0.14 0.18 0.03
P3 0.65 0.14 0.19 0.03
D1 0.64 0.14 0.19 0.03
O3 0.63 0.14 0.20 0.03
D2 0.62 0.14 0.20 0.03
P11 0.61 0.13 0.21 0.03
P13 0.60 0.13 0.22 0.03
D6 0.60 0.13 0.23 0.03
E7 0.59 0.13 0.23 0.03
E6 0.58 0.13 0.24 0.03
P5 0.57 0.12 0.24 0.03
E9 0.56 0.12 0.25 0.03
P2 0.54 0.12 0.27 0.03
P1 0.48 0.10 0.32 0.03
O4 0.47 0.10 0.33 0.03
P15 0.47 0.10 0.33 0.03
SI4 0.46 0.10 0.34 0.03
O5 0.45 0.10 0.35 0.03
P4 0.44 0.10 0.36 0.03
P10 0.44 0.09 0.36 0.03
E2 0.44 0.09 0.36 0.03
E3 0.43 0.09 0.37 0.03
P14 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.03
E5 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.03
P7 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.03
SI3 0.41 0.09 0.39 0.03
P9 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.03
P6 0.29 0.06 0.54 0.03
Table 5. E4 0.25 0.05 0.61 0.03
Calculations of the P8 0.21 0.05 0.67 0.03
weighted Sum 5.80 0.32
geometric mean Source(s): Table by authors

This is particularly true for small and medium-sized companies. This is compatible with the
results of Fuller et al. (2020), who highlighted running and installing high-performance
infrastructure and updated software and hardware as the primary financial challenge for
many companies. According to Martinez-Olvera (2022), lack of financial resources in the
forms of software and expertise, lack of proper digital infrastructure and lack of enough skills
to implement DT are some of the top financial issues that companies might face when they Digital twin
aim to implement DT. In addition, the government might act as an additional stumbling block implementation
in developing countries like Iran and Ghana by widespread corruption rather than
encouraging more companies towards digital twin implementation, like proposing low-
interest loans. These countries’ governments assume DT are unnecessary and expensive (Lu
and Xu, 2019).
The results also support the significant adverse effects of lack of education on the topic at
universities and lack of methodologies and tools on green DT applications, respectively. This is
also reflected in the paper by W€armefjord et al. (2020), who pointed out that many universities
and learning institutions lack the programs to include DT-related skills in their curriculum to
equip the future workforce with DT knowledge. According to (Singh et al., 2023a, b, c, d), many
university curricula in developed countries like Japan are old-fashioned and need reform. The
study also proposed including DT-related technologies like the internet of Things, Artificial
Intelligence and cyber-physical manufacturing systems in education programs. In addition, the
lack of methodologies and tools is another factor affecting DT implementation. In fact, without
proper methodologies and AI tools, digital twins’ higher amount of data cannot be handled
Kineber et al. (2023). According to Rasheed et al. (2020), these methodologies and tools can be
applied for data analysis, decision support systems and process optimization. This is also
reflected in the paper by Gunasekaran et al. (2020), who emphasized the higher cost of tools, the
complexity of using these tools and the lack of skilled personnel to use these tools and
methodologies as the main factors restricting the use of models in DT. Fuller et al. (2020), state
that a lack of IT infrastructure is the main challenge affecting digital twin applications.
Bevilacqua et al. (2020), also highlighted this in the paper, introducing several DT
infrastructures, including Big Data technologies, IoT devices, communication technologies
and computational infrastructures. It is evident that preparing this number of infrastructures
requires a huge amount of cost, time and energy from companies.
Other ranked barriers are more associated with the organization, including Lack of
specialists and expertise, Bureaucracy, cultural inertia, knowledge assessment and Difficulty
in making suitable decisions and investments regarding the enabling technologies,
respectively. This is also indicated in the paper by Bevilacqua et al. (2020), who highlight
the importance of human experts in analyzing data, making decisions, identifying anomalies
in measurements and finding solutions for these anomalies for effective DT implementation.
The paper also emphasized educating employees about DT benefits and setting new
organizational policies to avoid data breaches. According to Wishnow et al. (2020), lack of
support from the government, lack of familiarity with DT implementation, lack of interest in
changing their own organizational culture and complexity in using DT tools are some of the
main factors discouraging organizations from using green DT. Providing knowledge about
how to use DT and opportunities that DT suggests for organizations can change this
situation. In addition, the government can also encourage organizations to implement digital
twin implementation by providing financial packages and low-interest loans and setting new
regulations in favor of DT. Universities can also put DT technologies in their primary
curriculum, making future generations more knowledgeable about DT applications.
With 0.88 in the weighted geometric mean of the RII numbers for DT barriers calculated in
this study, the results show that the stationary DT barrier is challenging to ensure intellectual
property protection. This is a fixed barrier for all projects and organizations implementing
DT. As more information provided in different systems of any assets is private and
confidential, sharing this data and respecting its intellectual property rights are considered a
big challenge. This is also consistent with the result of Rasheed et al., (2020), who indicate the
importance of sharing data without revealing proprietary or sensitive information. M^eda et al.
(2021)also emphasized that sharing data among different project practitioners can be a big
challenge in implementing DT. However, Singh and Prasath Kumar (2022) suggested using
SASBE blockchain as one of the best solutions for intellectual property issues. This way, the data can
be available for all project stakeholders but cannot be edited.
Additionally, the study reveals that the stationary DT barrier, specifically the difficulty in
ensuring intellectual property protection, is considered a fixed and critical challenge for all
projects and organizations implementing DT. This aligns with previous research
emphasizing the importance of sharing data while protecting proprietary and sensitive
information. The findings contribute to the existing knowledge on DT and sustainable
construction by shedding light on the multifaceted challenges that hinder implementation.
The identified barriers provide valuable insights for researchers, practitioners and
policymakers, offering a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of adopting DT
for green applications in the construction industry. The study contributes practical strategies
for overcoming these barriers, fostering collaboration, investing in cybersecurity, deploying
advanced technologies, promoting knowledge transfer, implementing comprehensive data
governance and addressing environmental concerns. These insights aim to enhance the
resilience and adaptability of the construction ecosystem, ultimately supporting the
integration of cutting-edge technologies for sustainable projects.

6. Research implication
This study aims to offer a new insight into DT implementation by first identifying barriers
affecting green DT applications. Then, the criticality of barriers is examined and analyzed,
allowing researchers to find the best approaches against the most effective barriers and
accordingly, they may compare the ranking of barriers based on their research and current
research findings. Furthermore, the research framework used in the current study, which
includes both qualitative and quantitative approaches, can lay the groundwork for many
researchers to adopt it when following their research goals. In addition, the procedure used in
the current research can also be beneficial for other researchers for their external validation.
This study also provides a new insight for project managers. Firstly, identifying the list of
barriers and categorizing and ranking them can save project managers a lot of time and cost.
Additionally, it can give new insight into prioritizing some barriers over others and how to
prevent or diminish the effects of these barriers or find new approaches against them. To
comprehensively address these barriers, practical strategies include fostering collaboration,
investing in cybersecurity, deploying advanced technologies, promoting knowledge transfer,
implementing comprehensive data governance and managing environmental concerns
through education and standardization. This multifaceted strategy aims to overcome
challenges and ensure a more resilient and adaptive construction ecosystem.

7. Conclusion
Past studies have revealed that DT are widely utilized to enhance sustainable construction
techniques; nevertheless, their adoption remains limited in many countries. Given this
situation, this study aimed to address the limited adoption of DT in sustainable construction
practices despite their recognized potential. Through a two-stage iterative research approach,
we identified and examined the barriers hindering the implementation of DT in construction
building projects to enhance operational performance and sustainability. Based on survey
data collected from professionals within the Hong Kong building industry, our findings
revealed several vital barriers. These include the lack of methodologies and tools for effective
DT implementation, challenges in ensuring a high level of real-time communication
performance, difficulties in directly measuring all relevant data for the Digital Twin Model
(DTM), the necessity to share the DTM among multiple application systems involving
various stakeholders and uncertainties regarding the quality and reliability of data.
 Furthermore, using GM of dispersion, our analysis emphasized the importance of Digital twin
addressing the issue of stationary DT barriers, particularly the need to facilitate the sharing implementation
of the DTM among multiple application systems involving various stakeholders. In light of
these findings, it is evident that addressing these barriers is crucial for unlocking the full
potential of DT in the construction industry. Overcoming these challenges will lead to
improved operational performance and contribute to enhanced sustainability practices in
construction projects, ultimately benefiting both the industry and the environment. Further
research and collaboration among stakeholders are essential to develop strategies and
solutions to pave the way for more widespread and effective DT adoption in construction
practices.

References
Abdul, D., Wenqi, J. and Sameeroddin, M. (2023), “Prioritization of ecopreneurship barriers
overcoming renewable energy technologies promotion: a comparative analysis of novel
spherical fuzzy and Pythagorean fuzzy AHP approach”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 186, 122133, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122133.
Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Govindan, K., Yaftiyan, F., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Razavi Hajiagha, S.H. (2023),
“Unveiling coordination contracts’ roles considering circular economy and eco-innovation
toward pharmaceutical supply chain resiliency: evidence of an emerging economy”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 382, October 2022, 135135, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135135.
Arrichiello, V. and Gualeni, P. (2020), “Systems engineering and digital twin: a vision for the future of
cruise ships design, production and operations”, International Journal on Interactive Design and
Manufacturing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 115-122, doi: 10.1007/s12008-019-00621-3.
Asadi, S., Nilashi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Hyun, S.S. and Rezvani, A. (2021), “Effect of internet of things
on manufacturing performance: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making and neuro-fuzzy
approach”, Technovation, Vol. 118, September, 102426, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102426.
Bauer, T., Oliveira Antonino, P. and Kuhn, T. (2019), “Towards architecting digital twin-pervaded
systems”, Proceedings - 2019 IEEE/ACM 7th International Workshop on Software Engineering
for Systems-of-Systems and 13th Workshop on Distributed Software Development, Software
Ecosystems and Systems-of-Systems, SESoS-WDES 2019, IEEE, pp. 66-69, doi: 10.1109/SESoS/
WDES.2019.00018.
Bevilacqua, M., Bottani, E., Ciarapica, F.E., Costantino, F., Donato, L.Di, Ferraro, A., Mazzuto, G.,
Monteriu, A., Nardini, G., Ortenzi, M., Paroncini, M., Pirozzi, M., Prist, M., Quatrini, E., Tronci,
M. and Vignali, G. (2020), “Digital twin reference model development to prevent operators’ risk
in process plants”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.3390/su12031088.
Borodulin, K., Sokolinsky, L., Radchenko, G., Tchernykh, A., Shestakov, A. and Prodan, R. (2017),
Towards digital twins cloud platform: microservices and computational workflows to rule a
smart factory, UCC 2017 - Proceedings of The10th International Conference on Utility and
Cloud Computing, December, pp. 205-206, doi: 10.1145/3147213.3149234.
Broo, D.G. and Schooling, J. (2021), “Digital twins in infrastructure: definitions, current practices,
challenges and strategies”, International Journal of Construction Management, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.
1080/15623599.2021.1966980.
Cimino, C., Negri, E. and Fumagalli, L. (2019), “Review of digital twin applications in manufacturing”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 113, 103130, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.103130.
Daoud, A.O., Omar, H., Othman, A.A.E. and Ebohon, O.J. (2023), “Integrated framework towards
construction waste reduction: the case of Egypt”, International Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 695-709, doi: 10.1007/s40999-022-00793-2.
Deng, Y., Weng, Z. and Zhang, T. (2022), “Metaverse-driven remote management solution for scene-
based energy storage power stations”, Evolutionary Intelligence, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1521-1532,
doi: 10.1007/s12065-022-00769-0.
SASBE Dewagoda, K.G., Ng, S.T. and Chen, J. (2022), “Driving systematic circular economy implementation in
the construction industry: a construction value chain perspective”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 381 No. P2, 135197, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135197.
utzer, K. and Zancul, E. (2018), “Digital twin requirements in
Dur~ao, L.F.C.S., Haag, S., Anderl, R., Sch€
the context of industry 4.0”, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology,
Vol. 540, pp. 204-214, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01614-2_19.
Evangeline, P. and Anandhakumar (2020), Digital Twin Technology for “Smart Manufacturing”,
Advances in Computers, 1st ed., Elsevier, Vol. 117, doi: 10.1016/bs.adcom.2019.10.009.
Fuller, A., Member, S., Fan, Z., Day, C. and Barlow, C. (2020), “Digital twin: enabling technologies,
challenges and open research”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 108952-108971, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.
2020.2998358.
Gunasekaran, K., Annadurai, R., Kumar, P.S., Gregorio, J.L., Lartigue, C., Thiebaut, F., Lebrun, R., et al.
(2020), “Implementation of digital twins in the process industry: a systematic literature review
of enablers and barriers”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 58, May, 103558, doi: 10.1016/
j.jmsy.2020.07.006.
Hajirasouli, A., Banihashemi, S., Drogemuller, R., Fazeli, A. and Mohandes, S.R. (2022), “Augmented
reality in design and construction: thematic analysis and conceptual frameworks”, Construction
Innovation, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 412-443, doi: 10.1108/CI-01-2022-0007.
Hasan, H.R., Salah, K., Jayaraman, R., Arshad, J., Yaqoob, I., Omar, M. and Ellahham, S. (2020),
“Blockchain-based solution for COVID-19 digital medical passports and immunity certificates”,
IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 222093-222108, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3043350.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20, doi: 10.
1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382.
Herath, H.M.K.K.M.B. and Mittal, M. (2022), “Adoption of artificial intelligence in smart cities: a
comprehensive review”, International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, Vol. 2
No. 1, 100076, doi: 10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100076.
Javed, U., Khushnood, R.A., Memon, S.A., Jalal, F.E. and Zafar, M.S. (2020), “Sustainable incorporation
of lime-bentonite clay composite for production of ecofriendly bricks”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 263, 121469, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121469.
Kaewunruen, S. and Xu, N. (2018), “Digital twin for sustainability evaluation of railway station buildings”,
Frontiers in Built Environment, Vol. 4, December, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2018.00077.
Kaewunruen, S., Peng, S. and Phil-Ebosie, O. (2020), “Digital twin aided sustainability and
vulnerability audit for subway stations”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12 No. 19, pp. 1-17,
doi: 10.3390/SU12197873.
Kaiser, B., Reichle, A. and Verl, A. (2022), “Model-based automatic generation of digital twin models
for the simulation of reconfigurable manufacturing systems for timber construction”, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 107, pp. 387-392, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2022.04.063.
Kallio, H., Pietil€a, A.M., Johnson, M. and Kangasniemi, M. (2016), “Systematic methodological review:
developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide”, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, Vol. 72 No. 12, pp. 2954-2965, doi: 10.1111/jan.13031.
Karasu, T., Aaltonen, K. and Haapasalo, H. (2022), “The interplay of IPD and BIM: a systematic literature
review”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 640-664, doi: 10.1108/CI-07-2021-0134.
Kineber, A.F., Mohandes, S.R., Hamed, M.M., Singh, A.K. and Elayoty, S. (2022), “Identifying and
assessing the critical criteria for material selection in storm drainage networks: a stationary
analysis approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 21, 13863, doi: 10.3390/su142113863.
Kineber, A.F., Singh, A.K., Fazeli, A., Mohandes, S.R., Cheung, C., Arashpour, M., Ejohwomu, O. and
Zayed, T. (2023), “Modelling the relationship between digital twins implementation barriers and
sustainability pillars: insights from building and construction sector”, Sustainable Cities and
Society, Vol. 99, August, 104930, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104930.
Kumar, A., Kumar, V.R.P., Dehdasht, G., Reza, S., Manu, P. and Pour, F. (2023), “Investigating the Digital twin
barriers to the adoption of blockchain technology in sustainable construction projects”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 403, October 2022, 136840, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023. implementation
136840.
Lee, J., Cameron, I. and Hassall, M. (2019), “Improving process safety: what roles for digitalization and
industry 4.0?”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 132, pp. 325-339, doi: 10.1016/j.
psep.2019.10.021.
Lee, D., Lee, S.H., Masoud, N., Krishnan, M.S. and Li, V.C. (2021), “Integrated digital twin and
blockchain framework to support accountable information sharing in construction
projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 127, March, 103688, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.
2021.103688.
Lu, Y. and Xu, X. (2019), “Cloud-based manufacturing equipment and big data analytics to enable on-
demand manufacturing services”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 57,
June 2018, pp. 92-102, doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2018.11.006.
Lu, Q., Parlikad, A.K., Woodall, P., Don Ranasinghe, G., Xie, X., Liang, Z., Konstantinou, E.,
Heaton, J. and Schooling, J. (2020), “Developing a digital twin at building and city levels:
case study of west Cambridge campus”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000763.
Lydon, M., Lydon, D., Stevens, N.-A., Taylor, S., Early, J. and Marshall, A. (2021), “Understanding
the barriers to NET-ZERO transport for rural roads: a Northern Ireland case study”, Journal
of Infrastructure Preservation and Resilience, Vol. 2 No. 1, 24, doi: 10.1186/s43065-021-
00038-x.
Martınez-Olvera, C. (2022), “Towards the development of a digital twin for a sustainable mass
customization 4.0 environment: a literature review of relevant concepts”, Automation, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 197-222, doi: 10.3390/automation3010010.
Matheus, R., Faber, R., Ismagilova, E. and Janssen, M. (2023), “Digital transparency and the usefulness
for open government”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 73, August,
102690, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102690.
M^eda, P., Calvetti, D., Hjelseth, E. and Sousa, H. (2021), “Incremental digital twin conceptualisations
targeting data-driven circular construction”, Buildings, Vol. 11 No. 11, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.3390/
buildings11110554.
Min, S.H., Lee, T.H., Lee, G.Y., Zontar, D., Brecher, C. and Ahn, S.H. (2020), “Directly printed low-cost
nanoparticle sensor for vibration measurement during milling process”, Materials, Vol. 13
No. 13, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.3390/ma13132920.
Nikolakis, N., Alexopoulos, K., Xanthakis, E. and Chryssolouris, G. (2019), “The digital twin
implementation for linking the virtual representation of human-based production tasks to their
physical counterpart in the factory-floor”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2018.1529430.
Oke, A.E., Kineber, A.F., Albukhari, I., Othman, I. and Kingsley, C. (2021), “Assessment of cloud
computing success factors for sustainable construction industry: the case of Nigeria”, Buildings,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.3390/buildings11020036.
Oke, A.E., Aliu, J., Oluwasefunmi Fadamiro, P., Akanni, P.O. and Stephen, S.S. (2023), “Attaining
digital transformation in construction: an appraisal of the awareness and usage of automation
techniques”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 67, January, 105968, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.
105968.
Opoku, D.G.J., Perera, S., Osei-Kyei, R. and Rashidi, M. (2021), “Digital twin application in the
construction industry: a literature review”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 40, May,
102726, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102726.
Opoku, D.-G.J., Perera, S., Osei-Kyei, R., Rashidi, M., Bamdad, K. and Famakinwa, T. (2023), “Barriers
to the adoption of digital twin in the construction industry: a literature review”, Informatics,
Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 14, doi: 10.3390/informatics10010014.
SASBE Perno, M., Hvam, L. and Haug, A. (2022a), “Implementation of digital twins in the process industry: a
systematic literature review of enablers and barriers”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 134, 103558,
doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2021.103558.
Perno, M., Hvam, L., Haug, A., Lee, D., Lee, S.H., Masoud, N. and Krishnan, M.S. (2022b), “The impact
of smart materials, digital twins (DTs) and Internet of things (IoT) in an industry 4.0 integrated
automation industry”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 36, March, 103594, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.
2021.102726.
uner, S. and Goldschmidt, T. (2019), “Interoperable digital twins in
Platenius-Mohr, M., Malakuti, S., Gr€
IIoT systems by transformation of information models”, Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on the Internet of Things, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1145/3365871.3365873.
Preuveneers, D., Joosen, W. and Ilie-Zudor, E. (2018), Robust digital twin compositions for industry 4.0
smart manufacturing systems, Proceedings - IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object
Computing Workshop, EDOCW, IEEE, Vol. 2018-October, pp. 69-78, doi: 10.1109/EDOCW.
2018.00021.
Qiao, Q., Wang, J., Ye, L. and Gao, R.X. (2019), “Digital twin for machining tool condition prediction”,
Procedia CIRP, Vol. 81, pp. 1388-1393, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.049.
Rasheed, A., San, O. and Kvamsdal, T. (2020), “Digital twin: values, challenges and enablers from a
modeling perspective”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, October, pp. 21980-22012, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.
2020.2970143.
Rolle, R.P., Martucci, V.D.O. and Godoy, E.P. (2019), Digitalization of manufacturing processes:
proposal and experimental results, 2019 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for
Industry 4.0 and IoT, MetroInd 4.0 and IoT 2019 - Proceedings, pp. 426-431, doi: 10.1109/
METROI4.2019.8792838.
Sampaio, A.Z., Ferreira, M.M., Rosario, D.P. and Martins, O.P. (2010), “3D and VR models in Civil
Engineering education: construction, rehabilitation and maintenance”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 819-828, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.05.006.
Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Hui, F.K.P., Shirowzhan, S., Foroozanfar, M., Yang, L. and Aye, L. (2021), “Lean
practices using building information modeling (Bim) and digital twinning for sustainable
construction”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.3390/su13010161.
Shao, G. and Helu, M. (2020), “Framework for a digital twin in manufacturing: scope and
requirements”, Manufacturing Letters, Vol. 24, pp. 105-107, doi: 10.1016/j.mfglet.2020.04.004.
Shardeo, V., Patil, A. and Madaan, J. (2020), “Critical success factors for blockchain technology
adoption in freight transportation using fuzzy ANP-modified TISM approach”, International
Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1549-1580, doi: 10.
1142/S0219622020500376.
Singh, A.K. and Prasath Kumar, V.R. (2022), “Smart contracts and supply chain management using
blockchain”, Journal of Engineering Research (Kuwait), Vol. 9, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.36909/jer.
ACMM.16307.
Singh, A.K., Kumar, V.G.R.P., Hu, J. and Irfan, M. (2023a), “Investigation of barriers and mitigation
strategies to blockchain technology implementation in construction industry: an interpretive
structural modeling approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 30 No. 38,
pp. 89889-89909, doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-28749-6.
Singh, A.K., Kumar, V.R.P., Dehdasht, G., Mohandes, S.R., Manu, P. and Pour Rahimian, F. (2023b),
“Investigating barriers to blockchain adoption in construction supply chain management: a
fuzzy-based MCDM approach”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 196,
September, 122849, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122849.
Singh, A.K., Kumar, V.R.P., Irfan, M., Mohandes, S.R. and Awan, U. (2023c), “Revealing the barriers of
blockchain technology for supply chain transparency and sustainability in the construction
industry: an application of Pythagorean FAHP methods”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 15
No. 13, p. 10681, doi: 10.3390/su151310681.
Singh, A.K., Kumar, V.R.P., Shoaib, M., Adebayo, T.S. and Irfan, M. (2023d), “A strategic roadmap to Digital twin
overcome blockchain technology barriers for sustainable construction: a deep learning-based
dual-stage SEM-ANN approach”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 194, April, implementation
122716, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122716.
Stanke, J., Unterberg, M., Trauth, D. and Bergs, T. (2020), “Development of a hybrid DLT cloud
architecture for the automated use of finite element simulation as a service for fine blanking”,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 108 Nos 11-12,
pp. 3717-3724, doi: 10.1007/s00170-020-05567-5.
Stark, R., Fresemann, C. and Lindow, K. (2019), “Development and operation of Digital Twins for
technical systems and services”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 129-132, CIRP, doi: 10.1016/j.
cirp.2019.04.024.
Sun, S., Zheng, X., Villalba-Dıez, J. and Ordieres-Mere, J. (2020), “Data handling in industry 4.0:
interoperability based on distributed ledger technology”, Sensors (Switzerland), Vol. 20 No. 11,
pp. 1-22, doi: 10.3390/s20113046.
Svendsen, M.J., Schmidt, K.G., Holtermann, A. and Rasmussen, C.D.N. (2020), “Expert panel survey
among occupational health and safety professionals in Denmark for prevention and handling of
musculoskeletal disorders at workplaces”, Safety Science, Vol. 131, July, 104932, doi: 10.1016/j.
ssci.2020.104932.
Tagliabue, L.C., Cecconi, F.R., Maltese, S., Rinaldi, S., Ciribini, A.L.C. and Flammini, A. (2021),
“Leveraging digital twin for sustainability assessment of an educational building”,
Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.3390/su13020480.
Tan, C.C., Sayampanathan, A.A., Kwan, Y.H., Yeo, W. and Yeo, N.E.M. (2023), “Validity and reliability
of the European foot and ankle society (EFAS) score in patients with hallux valgus in
Singapore”, Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 295-299, doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.
2022.08.003.
Tao, F., Zhang, H., Liu, A. and Nee, A.Y.C. (2019), “Digital twin in industry: state-of-the-art”, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 2405-2415, doi: 10.1109/TII.2018.
2873186.
Ubina, N.A., Lan, H., Cheng, S., Chang, C., Lin, S., Zhang, X., Lu, H., Cheng, C.Y. and Hsieh, Y.Z. (2023),
“Digital twin-based intelligent fish farming with artificial intelligence internet of things (AIoT)”,
Smart Agricultural Technology, Vol. 5, July, p. 55, doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2023.100285.
Wang, X.V. and Wang, L. (2019), “Digital twin-based WEEE recycling, recovery and remanufacturing
in the background of Industry 4.0”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 12,
pp. 3892-3902, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1497819.
Wang, J., Ye, L., Gao, R.X., Li, C. and Zhang, L. (2019), “Digital Twin for rotating machinery fault
diagnosis in smart manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 12,
pp. 3920-3934, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1552032.
Waqar, A., Othman, I. and Pomares, J.C. (2023a), “Impact of 3D printing on the overall project
success of residential construction projects using structural equation modelling”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 20 No. 5, p. 3800,
doi: 10.3390/ijerph20053800.
Waqar, A., Skrzypkowski, K., Almujibah, H., Zagorski, K., Khan, M.B., Zagorska, A. and Benjeddou,
O. (2023b), “Success of implementing cloud computing for smart development”, in Small
Construction Projects, Applied Sciences (Switzerland), doi: 10.3390/app13095713.
W€armefjord, K., S€oderberg, R., Schleich, B. and Wang, H. (2020), “Digital twin for variation
management: a general framework and identification of industrial challenges related to the
implementation”, Applied Sciences (Switzerland), Vol. 10 No. 10, p. 3342, doi: 10.3390/
APP10103342.
Wishnow, D., Azar, H.R. and Rad, M.P. (2020), A deep dive into disruptive technologies in the oil
and gas industry, Offshore Technology Conference Brasil 2019, OTCB 2019, doi: 10.4043/
29779-ms.
SASBE Zhang, X., Shen, J., Saini, P.K., Lovati, M., Han, M., Huang, P. and Huang, Z. (2021), “Digital twin for
accelerating sustainability in positive energy district: a review of simulation tools and
applications”, Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, Vol. 3, June, doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.663269.
Zhang, J., Cheng, J.C.P., Chen, W. and Chen, K. (2022), “Digital twins for construction sites: concepts,
LoD definition, and applications”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 1-16,
doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000948.
Zhou, G., Zhang, C., Li, Z., Ding, K. and Wang, C. (2020), “Knowledge-driven digital twin
manufacturing cell towards intelligent manufacturing”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 1034-1051, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1607978.

Corresponding author
Atul Kumar Singh can be contacted at: as9892@srmist.edu.in

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