Unlocking Circularity in Construction via Agile Methods and BIM

Abstract

The construction sector is under growing pressure to transition from linear, resource-intensive models to regenerative, circular practices. While Circular Economy (CE), Building Information Modelling (BIM), and Agile Project Management (APM) are each recognized for their potential to improve sustainability, their combined application in construction remains underexplored, particularly among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In this study, we propose a conceptual framework integrating CE as a strategic objective, APM as the procedural methodology, and BIM as the digital enabler to foster circular practices in construction. Unlike previous studies, this research empirically integrates CE, BIM, and APM into a single coherent framework tailored specifically for SMEs. The framework is informed by secondary analysis of the BLOOM project dataset (n = 153) and a targeted readiness survey (n = 98) conducted among SMEs in the Mediterranean and Central European regions. The findings reveal a significant gap between awareness and implementation: while over 75% of respondents are familiar with CE and 63% use BIM tools, only 19% demonstrate readiness to integrate all three approaches. The main barriers—training gaps, regulatory ambiguity, and digital immaturity—are explored in detail. This study contributes by introducing a five-pillar framework and by identifying and analysing specific barriers that SMEs face when integrating CE–APM–BIM practices. Nevertheless, strong conceptual alignment exists, with over 80% agreeing on the potential of CE–Agile–BIM synergy. This study offers actionable insights into overcoming adoption barriers and emphasizes the need for policy-driven pilot projects, peer learning, and tailored capacity building to foster regenerative construction practices.

1. Introduction

The construction sector is a major driver of global sustainability challenges, accounting for approximately 36% of final energy consumption and 39% of energy-related CO₂ emissions worldwide. Furthermore, construction and demolition waste (CDW) accounts for more than 30% of total waste generated in the European Union (EU) [1,2]. These figures underscore the urgency of transitioning to more sustainable practices and efficient resource management in the built environment.

In response, several EU-wide policy frameworks have been established, including the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy (CE) Action Plan, the Renovation Wave strategy, and the Level(s) framework for sustainable buildings. These initiatives promote lifecycle thinking, carbon neutrality, and material reuse in construction [3,4,5,6]. To achieve these goals, the sector is increasingly adopting enabling methodologies and tools such as Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Agile Project Management (APM). BIM provides data-rich digital models throughout the building lifecycle, supporting circular design and real-time decision making [7,8]. APM fosters flexibility, stakeholder engagement, and iterative workflows [9].

Despite this potential, the integrated application of CE, BIM, and APM remains limited, particularly among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which constitute over 99% of construction firms in the EU [10,11]. SMEs commonly face financial and human capital constraints, impeding the adoption of digital technologies and circular approaches [12]. Research indicates that SMEs lag in BIM proficiency and strategic readiness for circular transformation [13].

BIM plays a pivotal role in enabling circularity by providing a unified platform for material tracking, lifecycle assessment (LCA), and scenario modelling for reuse and disassembly [7,8]. As the digital backbone, BIM facilitates early-stage decisions that shape the entire building lifecycle, including component reuse at end of life and reductions in embodied carbon.

In contrast, the application of APM in construction is still nascent. Widely adopted in IT, APM emphasizes responsiveness and adaptability—qualities that are increasingly essential for sustainable construction [14,15]. Initial case studies demonstrate that agile approaches can enhance coordination, reduce delays, and support iterative design, especially in modular construction and prefabricated construction systems [9,16]. However, the cultural transformation required to implement APM in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector remains a substantial challenge.

The integrated focus on CE, APM, and BIM in this study is a deliberate response to their complementary roles in addressing the distinct yet interconnected barriers SMEs face when implementing sustainable construction practices. CE provides the strategic framework for reducing resource consumption and waste, directly targeting the critical issue of CDW, which represents more than 30% of total waste generated in the EU. Through circular strategies such as reuse, recycling, and design for disassembly, SMEs can substantially reduce environmental impacts and enhance resource efficiency. BIM was selected as the digital enabler, providing essential data infrastructure for lifecycle tracking, scenario simulation, and informed decision making across project phases—capabilities that are crucial for managing material passports and end-of-life scenarios, thereby advancing CE objectives and reducing CDW. Meanwhile, APM offers procedural flexibility and supports the iterative implementation of circular strategies, enabling SMEs to respond to evolving project conditions and sustainability demands. This unique combination holistically addresses environmental, technological, and managerial challenges, offering SMEs practical pathways to operationalize circular practices and substantially reduce CDW.

Recent conceptual and practice-oriented studies have proposed frameworks that combine two of these elements, enabling construction firms, particularly SMEs, to enhance resource efficiency and regenerative capacity [13,16].

Unlike prior research that has examined CE, BIM, or APM individually or in limited combinations, this study offers the first empirical integration of all three elements—CE, BIM, and APM—into a unified, actionable framework specifically designed for SMEs. The findings are based on secondary analysis of the BLOOM project dataset (n = 153) and a bespoke CE–APM–BIM readiness survey (n = 98) across five Mediterranean countries. The objective is to inform policy and practice by outlining actionable pathways for implementing circularity through digital and agile tools in the construction sector.

The primary objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to explore how CE principles, APM, and BIM can be effectively integrated to enhance resource efficiency and project flexibility in SME-driven construction; (2) identify synergies, trade-offs, and barriers encountered in applying these approaches within SME contexts, especially in Mediterranean and Central European countries; and (3) synthesize insights from empirical data and the literature into a practical conceptual framework to guide SMEs in adopting CE–APM–BIM methodologies. These objectives align with the following research questions:

• How can CE, APM, and BIM be jointly applied in SME-led construction projects?
• What barriers arise in practice, and how do they manifest within EU/Mediterranean contexts?
• How can empirical insights inform a practical framework for SMEs?

By addressing these questions, this study contributes to both academic discourse and industry practice by offering an integrative perspective that aligns digitalization, agility, and circularity in support of a regenerative built environment. The core contributions are twofold: first, the research introduces a novel five-pillar framework that structurally integrates strategic, procedural, technological, cultural, and governance dimensions; second, it systematically identifies and analyses specific barriers faced by SMEs, providing targeted recommendations for overcoming these obstacles.

2. Literature Review

This literature review critically assesses existing research to clearly identify the gap concerning the integrated application of CE, APM, and BIM within SME contexts and establishes the theoretical foundations underpinning the empirical framework proposed in this study.

Despite growing interest in circularity, APM, and digitalisation within the AEC sector, there are few documented cases of the combined, real-world implementation of CE, APM and BIM, particularly among SMEs. Although only a limited number of studies describe SMEs directly applying all three approaches in tandem, several provide valuable insights into individual or paired application. For example, one SME participating in the BLOOM survey, operating in Southern Europe, reported initial efforts to link agile project workflows with resource reuse planning and digital monitoring using BIM tools. Nevertheless, most available studies offer only partial perspectives on the implementation of these concepts, confirming their individual or paired benefits while also identifying critical entry points for full integration.

2.1. CE and BIM Integration

The integration of CE principles and BIM has received growing attention, particularly in the early design and demolition phases, where both are recognized as key enablers of circular construction. A notable example involves Links FF&E, a UK-based SME specializing in design, production, and fit-out [17]. The company partially implemented BIM during a 30-month lean transformation programme focused on Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA). This case demonstrated that BIM can effectively streamline processes and operations in SMEs and that the issues associated with technology adoption challenges can be mitigated by emphasizing waste reduction and value creation. Traditionally, LCA methods have been employed to measure and minimize the environmental impacts of construction across project stages. However, when combined with CE thinking, the focus shifts from merely reducing negative impacts to actively closing material loops and extending resource value. Multiple studies provide evidence that coupling BIM and LCA can transform conventional, linear sustainability workflows into circular ones. For example, ref. [18] examines BIM integration with the Swiss Minergie-ECO standard, delivering structured and visual sustainability data to support informed decision making. RhinoCircular [19], a computational design tool, exemplifies early-stage circular design by offering real-time material feedback and circularity indicators. Other research highlights the importance of material passports, BIM-based demolition planning, and smart deconstruction workflows aligned with CE strategies [20,21]. One proposed demolition planning framework utilizes BIM to identify recyclable materials, thereby facilitating accessible CE practices for construction firms [20]. This approach supports digital deconstruction planning by linking design data to material recovery strategies—an approach especially pertinent for SMEs facing tight resource constraints.

The broader potential of BIM in enabling circular practices in the built environment is further explored by researchers [21], who emphasize BIM’s capacity to support circular analysis, manage buildings as material banks, introduce new workflows, and integrate supply chains. Similarly, a validated BIM-based circularity assessment tool, developed and applied in a Dutch renovation project [22], represents a significant advancement toward practical circularity across project phases. Although this tool was not designed specifically for SMEs, it was validated through user feedback and successfully implemented in a real-world renovation project, illustrating the practical viability and scalability of BIM-based circularity metrics for SME contexts.

Despite these promising examples, the integration of CE and BIM often lacks a clear, practical roadmap tailored to the needs of SMEs with limited digital maturity. In practice, implementation remains fragmented and frequently project specific.

2.2. APM and CE Synergies

Originating from software development, APM’s flexible and iterative approach is increasingly recognized as well suited for implementing CE strategies in construction. In the context of environmental performance evaluation, one study applies three different LCA methods to assess a modular Sprint unit [23]. By incorporating circularity aspects and allocation rules into its lifecycle modelling, this work offers valuable methodological lessons for circular building design assessment, particularly in prefabricated and modular construction. The integration of modular LCA assessment within an agile workflow demonstrates how dynamic sustainability priorities can be accommodated. Further research explores theoretical synergies between agile and circular thinking, suggesting that agile methods can help close the implementation gap in sustainability transitions [24]. A notable example from the U.S. construction sector presents an SME with a circular business model [24]. While not explicitly focused on APM or BIM, the theoretical framework for value creation in circular business models is validated through empirical SME data and highlights the importance of contextual factors.

Additional relevant evidence comes from a Canadian SME, where agile practices were applied in the implementation of an ERP system [25]. The findings indicate that agile thinking positively influenced requirement definition and organisational improvement, providing transferrable lessons for CE–APM–BIM transition strategies. It provides a conceptual blueprint for circular business models incorporating adaptive, customer-centred project cycles.

Finally, research on the theoretical synergy between agile management and CE in construction identifies mutual reinforcement between agile and circular transitions, recommending agile workflows as a strategic pathway to enhance sustainability and project efficiency [26]. While APM demonstrates potential to facilitate circular transitions, evidence of its practical application in construction SMEs remains limited.

2.3. BIM and APM: Technology Adoption and ERP Lessons

The intersection of BIM and APM practices remains an emerging area of study. A notable example from Canada [26] documents the use of APM during the implementation of an ERP system in an SME, revealing that iterative feedback and team co-location enhanced digital integration success. Although BIM and ERP differ functionally, the APM approach enabled a more manageable digital transition.

These insights are particularly relevant for SMEs adopting BIM, as stepwise deployment and feedback cycles can mitigate both resistance and resource limitations. Recent academic studies highlight that integrating APM with BIM can significantly support digital adoption and organizational transformation in construction SMEs. APM methods, originally developed for ERP and software implementations, have been shown to facilitate BIM adoption through iterative, user-centred processes and by reducing resistance to change [26,27]. Case studies demonstrate that practices such as incremental deployment, regular feedback loops, and hybrid APM–traditional approaches enable SMEs to progressively build digital capabilities and align BIM processes with core business needs [28,29]. Collectively, these findings suggest that drawing lessons from successful ERP implementations can help SMEs achieve more effective BIM integration, enhancing collaboration, productivity, and adaptability in resource-constrained project environments.

2.4. Current Gaps in Integrated CE–APM–BIM Approaches

The current literature affirms both the conceptual synergy and practical potential of integrating CE, BIM, and APM methodologies, whether individually or in pairs. However, a distinct empirical research gap persists regarding their combined implementation, especially within the SME context. SMEs, which are vital for advancing sector-wide sustainability goals, require practical and empirically validated frameworks tailored to their specific constraints. None of the reviewed studies report the full integration of CE–APM–BIM; instead, only partial combinations such as BIM–LCA [18], BIM with APM-driven ERP [26], or APM-CE synergies [26] have been documented, supporting the conceptual foundation and novelty of the empirical framework proposed here.

While the literature on pairwise integration (CE–BIM, CE–APM, BIM–APM) is growing, comprehensive empirical studies addressing all three elements in combination remain scarce. Most implementations are fragmented and lack formalized frameworks, particularly for SMEs. Moreover, existing studies seldom investigate how SMEs might overcome the combined challenges of digital immaturity, procedural rigidity, and a lack of strategic vision.

The main deficiencies in the integrated application of CE, APM, and BIM are as follows: (1) fragmented and isolated implementations that address only one or two elements; (2) a lack of systematic empirical research validating the combined benefits and practical feasibility; and (3) minimal exploration of integrated frameworks specifically designed for SMEs with resource constraints. These gaps underscore the necessity for an integrated conceptual model explicitly tailored to the needs and realities of resource-constrained construction SMEs.

Table 1. Overview of relevant studies on CE–APM–BIM components.

Reference	Focus of the Study	Integration Type	SME Case Included
Underwood et al. (2018) [17]	Lean transformation and BIM in FF&E SME	BIM + Lean + DfMA	✔ Yes
Naneva (2022) [18]	BIM–LCA integration aligned with Minergie-ECO	CE + BIM (LCA)	✖ No
Heisel & McGranahan (2024) [19]	Computational tools and circularity indicators	CE (Design indicators)	✖ No
Kuzminykh et al. (2024) [20]	Digital demolition planning with recyclable material focus	CE + BIM	✖ No
Cruz & Góes (2021) [21]	BIM’s role in CE for built environment	CE + BIM (strategy)	✖ No
Jiang et al. (2025) [22]	BIM-based circularity assessment tool, validated in renovation	CE + BIM (Tool)	✖ No
Kakkos & Hischier (2022) [23]	LCA assessment of modular Sprint unit	CE + LCA	✖ No
Ünal et al. (2019) [24]	Circular business model in US construction SME	CE (Business model)	✔ Yes (non-EU)
Enembreck et al. (2023) [25]	Synergy between agile and circular thinking in construction	APM + CE (Theory)	✖ No
Mamoghli & Cassivi (2019) [26]	Agile ERP implementation in Canadian SME	APM (ERP)	✔ Yes (non-EU)
Ribeiro & Fernandes (2010) [27]	Agile methods in construction SMEs (Portugal)	APM (Practice)	✔ Yes
Chai et al. (2022) [28]	BIM integration in Agile Scrum during design phase	BIM + APM	✖ No
Omar (2022) [29]	Enhancing agile application in construction projects using BIM	BIM + APM	✖ No
Martens et al. (2022) [13]	Agile BIM-based platform for material reuse	BIM + CE + APM	✖ No
Bjørberg & Temeljotov Salaj (2023) [14]	Linking CE and agile principles in facility management	CE + APM	✖ No
Enembreck et al. (2024) [16]	Agile frameworks in circular built environments	APM + CE	✖ No
Denicol et al. (2020) [9]	Agile and project performance in construction	APM	✖ No
Kim et al. (2023) [8]	BIM and material passports for circular construction	CE + BIM	✖ No

summarizes the reviewed studies, highlighting the types of integration explored and the extent of SME involvement.

Legend: Distribution of authors and research domains included in the literature review. No heatmaps are presented due to limited cell counts and small sample sizes. Future research with larger datasets may facilitate more granular or visual representations, such as heatmaps.

The theoretical foundation of this study rests on the integration of three complementary perspectives:

• Resource-Based View: highlighting BIM’s role as a strategic digital resource enabling SME competitive advantage and sustainability transitions.
• Agile Management Theory: emphasizing iterative adaptability and responsiveness essential for dynamic circular economy practices.
• Systems Theory: underpinning the holistic integration of CE principles with digital and managerial methodologies to address systemic sustainability challenges.

By addressing this research gap and integrating these theoretical perspectives, this study proposes an empirically supported, holistic framework that simultaneously tackles the digital, managerial, and environmental barriers faced by SMEs.

As established in the Introduction, the integration of CE, APM, and BIM offers a strategic, procedural, and digital foundation for advancing circularity within construction SMEs. The above literature review examines how these elements have been explored in prior research and identifies areas where further integration remains necessary.

3. Research Design and Methodology

This section outlines the research strategy adopted to investigate the integration of CE, BIM, and APM in the construction sector. This study utilized a non-random, purposive and convenient sample of SMEs. A mixed methods approach was employed, combining secondary data analysis and a primary survey, with a particular focus on SMEs operating in Mediterranean and Central European contexts.

3.1. Research Strategy and Data Sources

A combined purposive and convenience sampling strategy targeted individuals familiar with, or actively involved in, CE, BIM, or APM practices. The secondary data analysis draws on insights from the BLOOM project, supported by the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014–2021, under the Programme Business Development and Innovation Croatia (EEA Grants mechanism). BLOOM explored upskilling needs in the construction sector to support CE, as well as the green and digital transitions of the industry. The dataset comprises both quantitative results and qualitative insights from 153 SME respondents across beneficiary countries, providing robust baseline evidence on sectoral readiness for CE and digital transformation. To update and complement the BLOOM findings, an online CE-APM-BIM survey was conducted between March and May 2025, involving 98 SME respondents from five Mediterranean countries (Croatia, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Cyprus). Participants were recruited from a professional mailing list of construction sector experts and practitioners. At the time of the survey, the database included 5304 verified email addresses, primarily associated with SMEs and freelance professionals in Mediterranean countries. The survey invitation was distributed via email, followed by two reminders and partial telephone follow-up. Over a six-week period, 98 valid responses were collected, yielding an overall response rate of 1.8% (98/5304), which reflects the challenge of engaging a specialized SME audience through digital outreach. The survey was primarily conducted online via a dedicated Qualtrics link, with a limited number of telephone reminders made in Croatia and Italy to increase participation among SME practitioners. No paper-based or in-person data collection was used. The methodological limitations of this study, including non-random sampling and a low response rate, may affect the generalizability of the findings. Further details regarding these constraints are discussed in the Limitations and Future Work section.

3.2. Survey Design and Execution

The BLOOM survey consisted of 18 structured questions organized into three thematic modules:

• Awareness and implementation of CE principles;
• Capacity for digital tools and BIM;
• Organizational agility and APM.

Question types included four-point Likert-scale items (to gauge knowledge, implementation levels, and perceived barriers), multiple-choice items, and open-ended qualitative prompts. The instrument was pre-tested with five domain experts and subsequently refined to improve clarity and reliability. Although reliability was considered during pre-testing, internal consistency coefficients (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) were not calculated, as the survey was designed to capture diverse, multi-dimensional constructs (awareness, digital maturity, agility) rather than a single-factor scale. Content validity was enhanced by benchmarking the survey items against key themes from the current CE–APM–BIM literature and incorporating iterative expert feedback. Participants were informed of the anonymous and voluntary nature of their participation, in accordance with ethical research guidelines. No personally identifiable data were collected.

In the BLOOM survey, the sample of 153 respondents primarily comprised SME owners (34%), technical managers (28%), site engineers (18%), and sustainability officers or coordinators (11%), with the remainder split between architects and external consultants. Most participants were based in Croatia and Romania, followed by Portugal and Bulgaria. The majority of respondents represented micro and small enterprises (78%), consistent with the dominant structure of the construction sector in the region. Gender representation was predominantly male (76%), and the average years of professional experience among respondents was 14.3 years.

Similarly, the CE–APM–BIM survey included 98 respondents, most of whom were professionals currently active in SME contexts: 31% were project managers, 26% were architects or designers, 19% held BIM-related roles (e.g., coordinators, modellers), and 13% were executives or owners. Notably, 11% identified themselves as working in academic or advisory roles with strong industry ties. The geographic distribution spanned five Mediterranean countries, with the highest participation from Croatia and Italy. Nearly 60% of participants reported prior involvement in at least one innovation-focused project related to sustainability or digitalization. These characteristics reinforce the credibility and contextual relevance of the dataset for developing the CE–APM–BIM framework.

3.3. Analytical Approach and Ethical Considerations

Quantitative responses were analysed using descriptive statistics (means, frequencies) and basic cross-tabulations. Responses to open-ended questions underwent inductive thematic analysis with manual coding to identify recurring patterns related to motivation, barriers, and integration logic. These findings were triangulated with results from the BLOOM dataset to enhance validity.

No formal ethics approval was required, as the research did not involve sensitive personal data or interventions. Informed consent was implied through voluntary completion of the questionnaire. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Generative artificial intelligence (ChatGPT-4, OpenAI, 2024) was used exclusively for language editing and formatting support. All analytical and interpretative work was performed manually by the authors. Data used in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. All data were securely stored and used solely for academic purposes, in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

To further ensure analytical robustness and increase interpretative validity, survey results were triangulated not only across datasets (BLOOM and CE–APM–BIM) but also across respondent profiles, firm sizes, and countries. While the sample is non-probabilistic, the combination of purposive and convenience sampling enabled a diverse range of perspectives, particularly suited for exploratory and framework-generating research. Given the novelty of integrating CE, BIM, and APM in SME contexts, this study adopts a pragmatist epistemology, prioritizing practical insight and actionable knowledge over statistical generalizability.

The framework developed from this research is, therefore, not intended as a one-size-fits-all solution but as a contextualized heuristic grounded in empirical observation and theoretical synthesis. It offers a structured starting point for future empirical validation and policy experimentation in the Mediterranean and broader European construction ecosystem.

4. Results

4.1. BLOOM Analysis

The BLOOM dataset, comprising 153 responses from SMEs in the construction sector, offers valuable insight into current levels of awareness, implementation, and perceived obstacles regarding CE, BIM, and APM practices. Over 75% of respondents indicated high awareness of CE principles, particularly in relation to material efficiency, waste reduction, and energy use. However, while 63% reported some use of BIM tools, the adoption of APM methodologies was significantly lower, with fewer than 20% indicating any practical implementation. Despite high awareness, practical integration remains limited; only 19% of SMEs reported active efforts to combine CE, BIM, and APM in ongoing projects. This highlights a substantial gap between conceptual understanding and implementation capacity.

The most frequently cited barriers to integration were as follows: (1) lack of training and expertise (78%); (2) regulatory uncertainty, particularly regarding secondary materials (52%); and (3) limited access to financing for innovation (46%). Conversely, respondents identified peer learning, pilot funding, and digital toolkits as critical enablers.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of respondents expressing positive attitudes toward CE principles, segmented by their reported level of BIM usage. A clear positive trend is observed: among firms not using BIM, only 35% report supportive views of CE, compared to 65% of firms regularly using BIM. These findings suggest a potential correlation between digital maturity and sustainability orientation within the sector, implying that increased BIM adoption may facilitate the implementation of CE-aligned strategies.

Legend: Data from the BLOOM survey (n = 153). The figure presents the percentage of respondents supporting CE, stratified by their level of BIM usage. Note: Due to non-random sampling, inferential statistical testing (e.g., confidence intervals or error bars) was not applied; values are descriptive only.

The observed correlation between BIM usage and positive attitudes toward CE suggests that digital maturity may act as a key enabler for broader sustainability integration. To explore this relationship further, Figure 2 presents the extent to which BIM adoption correlates with overall organizational readiness to integrate CE–APM–BIM approaches. This progression from attitudinal support to practical implementation highlights the centrality of BIM as a foundational capability for system-wide transformation.

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of integration readiness across three levels of BIM usage. Among firms not using BIM, only 5% report high readiness to integrate CE–APM–BIM, compared to 30% among firms with advanced BIM application. The trend indicates that BIM maturity is strongly associated with greater organizational readiness for holistic, sustainable innovation. Notably, the proportion of firms with low readiness declines substantially as BIM adoption increases, reinforcing the view that digital capabilities underpin broader transformation in construction SMEs.

Legend: Distribution of organizational readiness to integrate CE–APM–BIM, by tiers of BIM adoption. Caution is warranted for small subgroups (medium CE activity group n = 8; high CE activity group n = 12); data are descriptive.

Although the statistical significance of the findings is limited by the small size of certain subgroups (e.g., medium CE activity group, n = 8; high CE activity group, n = 12), the data reveal that firms with low engagement in CE report no involvement in experimental sustainability projects. Among those with medium CE activity (n = 8), 12.5% reported participation in such initiatives. Interestingly, no firms in the high CE category (n = 12) reported experimental engagement, which may be attributable to the small sample size and potential underreporting. While these trends should be interpreted with caution, they suggest a possible association between increasing CE maturity and innovation-oriented behaviour among SMEs in the construction sector.

4.2. CE-APM-BIM Survey Findings

In spring 2025, a rapid survey was conducted to assess the current readiness of construction sector professionals to integrate CE, BIM and APM. The survey, disseminated across five Mediterranean countries, yielded 98 valid responses. Although limited in sample size, the data offer timely insights into emerging patterns of awareness, adoption, and perceived barriers in practice.

Despite widespread conceptual alignment with the goals of sustainability and digital transformation, actual implementation remains limited. A significant majority of respondents (86%) expressed agreement with the strategic importance of integrating CE, APM, and BIM, to improve resource efficiency and project adaptability. However, only a small fraction had translated this recognition into operational practice. BIM use was found to be predominantly confined to the design phase, with just 21% of participants reporting application in later project stages such as construction or operation. APM, meanwhile, remained largely experimental, with only 12% indicating any form of agile adoption within their current delivery models.

Figure 3 presents the distribution of BIM usage intensity across firms of varying sizes, as reported in the CE-APM-BIM Survey 2025 (n = 98). BIM usage is categorized across four levels: “No use,” “Design only,” “Design + Construction,” and “Lifecycle BIM.”

Micro (n = 35) and small (n = 18) firms show a concentration at the lower end of the adoption spectrum: 30.6% of micro firms (13/35) and 27.8% of small firms (5/18) report no BIM use. The majority—48.6% of micro (17/35) and 44.4% of small firms (8/18)—use BIM solely during the design phase. Only a marginal share extends BIM to construction (8.6% of micro, 3/35; 16.7% of small, 3/18) or applies it across the entire lifecycle (5.7% of micro, 2/35; 11.1% of small, 2/18). These patterns reflect persistent barriers to digital uptake among smaller enterprises, including limited internal capacity, lack of specialized training, and limited exposure to complex project environments where advanced BIM integration is either required or incentivized.

Medium-sized firms (n = 14) exhibit a more balanced adoption profile. While 28.6% (4/14) report no BIM use and 28.6% (4/14) use it only for design, a notably higher share (28.6%, 4/14) applies BIM across both design and construction, and 14.3% (2/14) report full lifecycle BIM use. This broader distribution may reflect a critical mass of internal resources and project complexity that justifies a more advanced BIM strategy.

Interestingly, large enterprises (n = 29) do not show the highest levels of lifecycle BIM adoption. Only 13.8% (4/29) report using BIM across the lifecycle, a lower share than among medium-sized firms. Although their rates of “No use” are somewhat lower (27.6%, 8/29), a considerable portion remains concentrated in the “Design only” (31.0%, 9/29) and “Design + Construction” (27.6%, 8/29) categories.

This somewhat counterintuitive pattern may be explained by several structural and market-related factors. Many large firms in the sample are contractors, operating in contexts where lifecycle BIM is not routinely required, such as public tenders or low-margin projects. Moreover, such firms often exhibit siloed organizational structures, with BIM deployed in discrete departments rather than across the entire asset lifecycle. Legacy systems fragmented digital ecosystems, and uneven client-side demand further inhibited full integration. As such, large firm capacity does not automatically translate into advanced digital implementation.

Legend: Results from the CE-APM-BIM survey (n = 98). BIM usage categories are mapped against firm size (micro, small, medium, large). No inferential statistics are applied due to sample size constraints.

These findings regarding the intensity of BIM usage by company size confirm the presence of structural barriers to digital transformation, particularly among smaller firms. Building on these patterns, the next figure (Figure 4) shifts focus to preferred training formats that could address identified capacity gaps, especially in the context of integrating CE, APM, and BIM.

Accordingly, Figure 4 presents the distribution of training preferences for integrating CE, BIM, and APM, based on data from the CE-APM-BIM Survey 2025 (n = 98). Respondents were asked to indicate their preferred learning formats from a predefined set of options commonly used in professional training. A clear majority (94%, n = 92) expressed interest in participating in some form of structured training. Among them, 42% (n = 41) favoured on-site workshops, reflecting a preference for direct, hands-on learning with opportunities for peer interaction. An additional 37% (n = 36) preferred online training formats that include real-world case studies, underscoring demand for applied knowledge contextualized to construction practice. These top-ranked formats indicate that SMEs value experiential and practical approaches over purely theoretical instruction.

By comparison, 12% (n = 12) of respondents opted for self-paced e-learning, and 6% (n = 6) indicated a preference for blended (hybrid) learning models. A small number (3%, n = 3) selected other formats. Importantly, only 6% (n = 6) of participants reported no interest in training at all, highlighting an overwhelming latent readiness for capacity building in the construction sector.

Legend: Respondents could select multiple training formats. Percentages are calculated out of n = 98 valid responses. Results are descriptive; subgroup sizes for blended (n = 6) and other formats (n = 3) are reported for transparency.

Figure 5 presents a multi-response analysis of the most frequently reported barriers to implementing CE, based on the CE-APM-BIM Survey 2025 (n = 98). Respondents could select multiple barriers, reflecting the multi-layered and systemic nature of CE implementation challenges in the construction sector.

The most prominent constraint, cited by 69% of respondents (n = 68), was the absence of a functional and economically viable market for secondary construction materials. This highlights a critical supply-side gap that inhibits material reuse, reduces planning reliability, and undermines the business case for circular procurement. Closely following, 61% of participants (n = 60) identified the lack of clear, consistent regulatory frameworks as a major impediment, underscoring the urgent need for policy harmonization and the integration of CE criteria into public procurement guidelines and building codes.

Equally concerning is the training gap: 55% of firms (n = 54) noted the absence of CE-specific educational offerings tailored to the realities of SMEs, especially those with limited internal capacity for innovation. Furthermore, 48% (n = 47) cited insufficient access to digital tools for material tracking, lifecycle monitoring, and circular design, emphasizing technological barriers to operationalizing CE ambitions.

Additional barriers include low client demand for circular construction solutions (44%, n = 43), shortages of skilled professionals capable of implementing CE principles (39%, n = 38), and the perceived high cost of transition measures (35%, n = 34). Collectively, these obstacles reveal a misalignment between strategic intent and operational feasibility, particularly for firms navigating volatile market conditions and fragmented supply chains.

These findings reinforce the qualitative insights from open-ended survey responses, which stressed the need for practical, regionally adapted tools, realistic implementation guidance, and capacity-building initiatives tailored to the specific constraints of Mediterranean construction ecosystems. Respondents repeatedly called for training formats that connect CE concepts with BIM-enabled workflows and APM coordination practices, delivered through peer-based, experiential formats such as workshops and case-based online modules.

Legend: Multi-response analysis of perceived barriers. Descriptive frequencies are reported.

Overall, the results of the CE-APM-BIM survey suggest a sector poised for transformation but constrained by infrastructure, policy, and capacity deficits. These findings underscore the importance of integrative pilot projects and cross-sectoral knowledge exchange as mechanisms for accelerating adoption across the Mediterranean construction landscape. Given the non-random and self-selected nature of the sample, results should be interpreted as indicative rather than generalizable.

5. Discussion

Both the BLOOM project and the 2025 CE-APM-BIM Survey confirm a substantial gap between the high awareness of CE, BIM, and APM among construction SMEs and their practical implementation. While over 75% of BLOOM respondents reported familiarity with CE and 63% with BIM, only 19% were ready to integrate all three approaches. The CE–APM–BIM survey showed similar trends: 86% recognized the strategic potential, but only 21% used BIM beyond design, and a mere 12% reported any APM experience.

This implementation gap is explained by leading technology adoption theories. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) posits that adoption depends on perceived usefulness and ease of use [30,31]. For many SMEs, while the benefits of CE–BIM–APM are conceptually clear, perceived complexity (such as with BIM tools) and uncertain value slow uptake. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory [31,32] emphasizes the influence of relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity; CE–APM–BIM may not yet appear compatible with SME workflows, positioning many firms as late adopters. The Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework adds that organizational readiness and environmental pressures are also critical [32,33]. Our results show SMEs with higher digital maturity are more open to integration, but weak external pressures, like limited client or policy demand, reduce the urgency for change. Indian studies further underscore the role of top management support and pilot projects in facilitating BIM adoption [34]. Collectively, these theories clarify why awareness has not translated into action: SMEs are not yet convinced of the practical value (TAM), encounter compatibility and complexity challenges (DOI), and lack organizational or environmental drivers (TOE). Despite differing regional contexts, both datasets highlight convergent barriers: the absence of a functional market for secondary materials, unclear regulatory frameworks, and limited access to SME-adapted training. These systemic obstacles reinforce the reliability of observed patterns and underscore the structural nature of the transition gap.

Barriers to CE–APM–BIM integration arise from a combination of structural, cultural, and institutional factors. Structurally, SMEs often operate with limited capital, small teams, and fragmented supply chains, complicating investments in new technologies or agile processes, even where circular practices are known. The project-based nature of the industry further impedes innovation uptake [35]. Our findings, including limited secondary materials markets and minimal BIM use beyond design, reflect this underdeveloped ecosystem.

Culturally, SMEs remain conservative, favouring established methods and displaying resistance to change. The literature shows that small contractors view BIM as a risky departure from established practice [36], and only 12% report APM experience, indicating hesitation to alter management styles rather than a rejection of sustainability.

Institutional barriers, such as unclear regulations or weak client demand, often stem from policy and market deficiencies. Without codes or procurement policies that reward circularity, even motivated SMEs lack incentives to innovate. Where CE guidelines or incentives are absent, ambiguity and risk deter first movers. Studies in developing contexts confirm that insufficient government support, vague standards, and high costs impede BIM and CE adoption [32].

Alternative explanations must also be considered. Apparent reluctance may in fact reflect rational caution in the face of tight margins or be a response to insufficient client demand. Ultimately, structural constraints, cultural conservatism, and weak institutional support form a self-reinforcing cycle that stalls CE–APM–BIM integration. Breaking this cycle demands coordinated action on all fronts.

BIM is a pivotal enabler in the transition to integrated circular and agile practices. Both datasets demonstrate a strong positive correlation between BIM maturity and CE–APM readiness. In BLOOM, advanced BIM users were more likely to embrace agile processes and CE experimentation, suggesting digital maturity supports regenerative practices. However, digital maturity remains rare: only one in five firms uses BIM beyond design, and even among large firms, lifecycle BIM adoption is limited (13.8%). This critical bottleneck suggests that while BIM is essential for advanced CE practices, widespread uptake requires targeted intervention. These findings reveal a fragmented SME landscape: strong conceptual alignment with CE–APM–BIM but inconsistent operational capacity. BLOOM highlights wide variation in CE maturity, while the CE–APM–BIM survey confirms strong demand for support—94% seek integrated training, especially experiential formats. SMEs are, thus, not resistant to change but lack the structural support to engage in transformation. Comparative evidence from Asia and Africa affirms that these barriers are global. In Ghana, financial and regulatory constraints limit digital adoption for circular construction [37,38]. In Nigeria, weak government incentives and high implementation costs impede BIM and sustainability uptake [32]. By contrast, top-down policy in Asia (e.g., BIM mandates in China [39] and Singapore [40]) has accelerated SME digitalization. These cases underscore that strong policy signals and incentives drive faster adoption.

Parallel integration efforts are found in other sectors. In manufacturing, agile methods and digital tools support circular models, with Industry 4.0 technologies enabling initiatives like Michelin’s circular tire redesign and EU projects such as CIRCULOOS [41]. Logistics and other industries similarly use Agile Project Management and circular models to boost efficiency and sustainability. Across contexts, successful integration depends on clear benefits, internal capacity, and supportive policy.

Strategic imperatives emerging from this research include the following:

• Accessible tools that simplify CE–BIM–APM application in real projects;
• Targeted, hands-on training rooted in practical scenarios and regional realities;
• A transparent regulatory framework that reduces uncertainty and aligns procurement criteria with CE goals;
• Pilot projects and demonstration sites that showcase feasible, scalable models of circular construction.

These priorities align with the BLOOM roadmap and emphasize the value of practical experimentation and knowledge exchange.

In sum, advancing a unified conceptual framework that integrates CE, BIM, and APM offers SMEs a pathway to regenerative construction. CE provides the strategic vision, BIM supplies technical infrastructure, and APM delivers procedural agility for iterative innovation. Achieving effective CE–APM–BIM integration requires coordinated policy and institutional support: governments and industry must develop clear standards and guidelines (e.g., mandating material reuse and BIM-based passports), harmonize procurement and regulatory frameworks, and incentivize SMEs through subsidies and grants. Evidence from the UK [42] and China [39] demonstrates the impact of mandates and incentives. Knowledge exchange, via innovation hubs, demonstration projects, and CE–BIM academies, can accelerate skill development. Policymakers should streamline regulations, provide advisory support, and adopt long-term SME support strategies, as seen in Japan [43]. Success will depend on a mix of top-down mandates, bottom-up capacity building, and adaptive regulation to create an enabling ecosystem for SME-led sustainability.

This discussion validates the need for an integrated, actionable framework—simple enough for SMEs yet robust enough to guide the complex transition from linear to circular construction. The CE–BIM–APM framework offered here is grounded in empirical findings and designed for real-world application.

6. The CE-APM-BIM Integration Framework

Building on the empirical findings and state-of-the-art literature, this section introduces an integrated framework designed to support SMEs in their transition toward regenerative construction. The framework synthesizes CE as the strategic “why,” APM as the procedural “how,” and BIM as the digital “with what.” These components are organized into five interdependent pillars that enable systemic transformation in the construction sector: Strategy, Processes with Methodology, Technology with Digital Infrastructure, Capabilities with Culture, and Governance with Policy.

While both datasets confirm widespread awareness of CE, BIM, and APM, implementation lags due to fragmented systems, insufficient training, and persistent regulatory and technological uncertainty. Over 80% of surveyed SMEs believe in the strategic value of integration, and the vast majority express interest in structured, practice-oriented learning. However, bottlenecks such as low BIM maturity, unclear CE regulation, and weak agile readiness highlight the need for a unified yet flexible approach that allows SMEs to pursue transformation even under resource constraints. The proposed framework addresses this by mapping interdependent enablers and barriers across organizational layers.

The five pillars of the CE-APM-BIM integration framework are as follows:

• Strategy—embeds CE into organizational vision and business models.
• Processes with Methodology—operationalizing CE through agile project delivery, BIM-enabled workflows, and lean construction tools.
• Technology with Digital Infrastructure—deploys digital enablers (e.g., 4D/5D BIM, material passports, digital twins) to support circular data management and collaboration.
• Capabilities with Culture—fostering a multidisciplinary, empowered, and learning-oriented workforce through targeted training and inclusive governance.
• Governance with Policy—embedding CE criteria into procurement, aligning projects with regulatory mandates, and ensuring transparency through KPIs and performance feedback mechanisms.

The framework is visually represented in Figure 6, where vertical pillars represent enabling dimensions and horizontal layers clarify the roles of CE (what to achieve), APM (how to work), and BIM (with what to enable). This structure supports conceptual clarity while allowing contextual adaptation based on firm size, market maturity, and project typology.

Each pillar contains actionable, mutually reinforcing components. For example, the Strategy pillar ensures CE is not an add-on but a core value embedded in investment, procurement, and innovation decisions. The Processes and Methodology pillar integrates sustainability objectives directly into project delivery, making circularity a routine consideration rather than an isolated assessment. Technology and Digital Infrastructure underpin collaboration and lifecycle management, while Capabilities and Culture ensure SMEs can navigate the demands of CE, APM, and BIM through ongoing skill development and supportive team structures. Finally, Governance and Policy provide a stable environment for CE adoption through clear standards, robust data practices, and links to procurement and compliance.

Collectively, these pillars form a coherent, modular framework that can guide pilot projects, inform policy, and structure capacity-building programs for SMEs at different maturity levels. Its flexibility ensures relevance across a range of starting points and project contexts, providing a practical roadmap for advancing circular, agile, and digital integration in the construction sector.

While Figure 6 outlines the five structural pillars essential for integrating CE goals, APM, and BIM tools in construction SMEs, the conceptual framework itself is inherently systemic and multi-layered. To further clarify the operational relationships between these elements, Figure 7 presents a dynamic, process-oriented representation of the CE–Agile–BIM integration pathway.

This diagram emphasizes the functional interplay between CE and APM as the delivery method and BIM as the enabler. It illustrates how circular objectives are embedded within iterative project workflows, supported by BIM-based data and guided by agile procedures. Figure 7 also highlights the procedural logic underpinning the CE–APM–BIM framework, showing how iterative loops operate across all phases of the construction lifecycle, from material sourcing to end-of-life (EoL) processes. Within this context, iterations represent cycles of improvement, adaptation, and feedback that occur at each stage of the CE loop.

Together, Figure 6 and Figure 7 provide a complementary perspective: Figure 6 establishes the structural enablers, while Figure 7 details the procedural logic that drives integrated project delivery and lifecycle management in practice.

Phase-specific interpretation of iterations in the CE–APM–BIM framework is detailed below:

• Material extraction: Iterative cycles involve evaluating alternative material sourcing strategies with lower environmental impact, integrating simulations of secondary material availability, and aligning with material passports through BIM platforms. Agile methods facilitate rapid testing of different procurement and reuse scenarios.
• Design: Iterations in the design phase are supported by BIM-enabled parametric modelling (e.g., 4D/5D BIM), which fosters real-time collaboration between architects, engineers, and contractors. Agile sprints promote rapid testing of CE strategies such as modularity, disassembly potential, and design for adaptability.
• Construction: During construction, iterative adjustments are driven by digital monitoring tools that enable real-time optimization of workflows. BIM models are updated continuously, and agile coordination ensures flexibility in execution plans as materials, site conditions, or CE constraints evolve.
• Usage: Iterations in the usage phase relate to continuous performance monitoring via digital twins and sensor-based systems. Feedback from building operation informs maintenance strategies aimed at extending the lifecycle of components and systems, in alignment with CE principles.
• Reuse: BIM models, enriched during the usage phase, enable identification of elements suitable for disassembly and reuse. Iterative cycles here involve feasibility assessments, market alignment, and logistic planning for the reintegration of components into new value chains.
• End of life (EoL: demolition, recycle, reuse): In the final phase, iterative assessments support decisions around selective demolition, sorting strategies, and material recovery optimization. BIM facilitates data-driven material inventories, while agile principles ensure adaptive decision making in response to site conditions and regulatory factors.

7. Conclusions

This study advances the discourse on sustainable transformation in construction by empirically validating an integrated CE–APM–BIM framework, based on robust survey data from SMEs in the Mediterranean region. The results confirm that while there is strong strategic awareness of circularity, agility, and digitalization, persistent barriers remain, especially in the operationalization of agile practices and the adoption of full-lifecycle BIM. The framework synthesizes five critical pillars—Strategy, Processes, Technology, Capabilities, and Governance—to guide SMEs toward effective regenerative construction. CE is positioned as the strategic anchor, APM as the procedural enabler, and BIM as the digital infrastructure necessary for project-wide integration. By explicitly linking CE objectives with APM models and BIM-based digitalization, the framework offers a practical response to persistent fragmentation in sustainability innovation. It draws on international best practices ([44,45,46]) yet remains adaptable to the specific conditions of Mediterranean and Central European SMEs. Its cross-sectoral applicability enables use by industry practitioners, educators, policymakers, and digital solution providers, and its modularity supports phased implementation, allowing even resource-constrained SMEs to pursue meaningful circular innovation.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that, although SMEs are motivated to undertake sustainability transitions, they are hindered by training deficits, regulatory uncertainty, and limited digital maturity. Overcoming these systemic barriers requires policy-driven pilot projects, applied training programs, and incentive-based digital toolkits designed specifically for SMEs.

Based on the findings, we propose the following actionable recommendations for SMEs aiming to integrate CE, APM, and BIM:

• Invest in targeted, hands-on training for BIM and agile management, tailored to real project environments.
• Initiate pilot projects applying circular principles and agile workflows, leveraging BIM for material tracking and performance measurement.
• Participate in peer-learning networks and regional hubs to exchange best practices and digital solutions.
• Engage with policymakers to promote the inclusion of CE criteria in procurement and regulatory frameworks.
• Leverage funding and incentive programs for digital and circular innovation, focusing on technology acquisition and workforce upskilling.

Policy implications: Public authorities should accelerate the alignment of procurement procedures, building codes, and funding instruments with CE objectives. Mandating CE–APM–BIM integration in public tenders or rewarding SMEs for circular innovations would reduce market uncertainty and catalyse wider adoption. National and regional governments are also encouraged to establish living labs and demonstration projects to showcase successful CE–APM–BIM implementation, fostering broader diffusion throughout the sector.

Limitations and Future Work

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. The achieved response rate (1.8%) was modest, restricting the statistical generalizability of the results to the broader SME construction population in the Mediterranean and Central European regions. As is typical of online professional surveys, the sample is likely skewed toward innovation-active and digitally engaged SMEs, potentially overstating overall sectoral readiness and adoption levels. Furthermore, the use of a non-random, purposive sampling strategy—combined with the low response rate—increases the risk of selection bias and further limits representativeness.

Although the multi-dimensional survey instrument was validated through expert feedback and pre-testing, statistical reliability coefficients (such as Cronbach’s alpha) were not calculated due to the exploratory and multi-faceted nature of the constructs, which constrains claims of internal consistency. In addition, the exclusive focus on Mediterranean and Central European countries narrows external validity, meaning that the findings may not be directly transferable to other geographical or institutional contexts.

Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable empirical insights into the barriers and enablers of CE–APM–BIM adoption among SMEs and establishes a robust basis for future research and the development of practical frameworks in similar settings.

Future research should aim to employ random sampling methods, broaden geographic coverage, and include longitudinal studies to monitor real-world piloting and operationalization of the proposed framework. Experimental interventions, such as SME-focused pilot projects, open access training modules, and demonstration sites, should be systematically evaluated for their impact on readiness and adoption. Additionally, comparative studies across different regions and a deeper examination of client, market, and regulatory drivers will further advance understanding and support more effective implementation of CE–APM–BIM integration in the construction sector.