3. Interview Results
This section presents the results of the interviews with respect to the following main topics: the definition of a platform approach; its benefits, technical challenges, and human-centric challenges; and technical and human-centric considerations in platform implementation. These results address the two research questions that are the focus of this study.
3.1. Platform Definition
The interviewees agreed that a platform in the AEC industry is the combination of a system and an approach. Architects viewed it as an approach to enhancing the user experience through a design philosophy that allows flexibility within constraints. Manufacturers and structural engineers emphasized the technical aspects, viewing it as a system that defines standardized structural dimensions and the value of rule-based design. Project managers recognized both aspects: the approach enables better scheduling, cost control, and risk management, and the system supports supply chain integration and streamlines procurement to reduce uncertainty. One interviewee (I11) noted the following:
“The platform does not invent new technology. It seeks the adoption of existing innovations by stakeholders who may only see them from limited perspectives. In this sense, bringing diverse stakeholders together is what ultimately defines the platform.”
The interviewees highlighted three core principles—organizational, technological, and procedural—of the platform approach. The organizational principle involves shifting from project-specific teams to platform teams that focus on long-term asset development, including component libraries, design rules, and interfaces. Technologically, platform implementation depends on digital tools for automating configurations, defining rule sets, and integrating manufacturing data. The procedural principle involves standardized workflows and design patterns with feedback loops. One interviewee (I10) explained:
“… Classifying the work into three main principles simplifies the way we collaborate and work in the platform. I prefer to classify them into organizational, technological, and procedural.”
Unlike traditional bespoke construction based on sequential one-off project design, a platform enables scalable, repeatable solutions using standardized kits of parts, producing automated and consistent deliverables across different projects. One interviewee (I1) noted the following:
“The value of the platform lies in its focus on developing an integrated approach rather than treating each project in isolation as is common in traditional construction. Using platform logic, multiple projects can be managed simultaneously within a shared framework.”
3.2. Platform Benefits
Scalability and repeatability are keys to platform success because scalable, repeatable, low unit costs make mass production efficient. Standardized grids and dimensions enable economies of scale, reducing both fixed and operational costs. Systematically, repeating the same steps with new insight streamlines development and enhances production over time. Standardizing tasks also allows non-specialists to contribute, helping to mitigate shortages and challenges associated with an aging construction workforce. A project manager (I10) explained:
“Once the platform is defined, we can scale it across buildings, sites, or even clients.”
Standardized components and digital tools enable flexible and efficient design, turning digital models into physical buildings, which has been notoriously difficult in the past. Flexible and efficient design ultimately supports manufacturing-led innovation that improves productivity and speeds delivery. One interviewee (I3) explained:
“We are not starting from scratch on every project. We are working within a consistent system that still allows us to adapt to different requirements.”
The platform approach reduces complexity and fragmentation within the AEC industry by encouraging a shift in the mindsets among major clients, governments, and universities. It also supports a more diverse supply chain from the early stages of development, as discussed by one interviewee (I2):
“The design configurators in the platform push the boundaries of what architects can do, not only for buildings but also for infrastructure, because the construction industry is not just one industry; it’s an integration of many different ones.”
By standardizing components and utilizing modules, the platform enabled significant material cost savings. The ability to repeat designs and other materials in bulk minimized waste and improved procurement efficiencies. One interviewee (I11) noted the following:
“By standardizing the components and ordering materials in bulk, we saw a noticeable decrease in waste and offcuts, resulting in direct cost cuts.”
The platform approach facilitates better time management throughout the project life cycle. Prefabricated modules manufactured off-site reduced the on-site assembly time and minimized weather-related delays. Concurrent design workflows and early supplier involvement further compressed the schedule. One interviewee (I9) noted the following:
“Because we manufactured modules off-site while design was still underway, the on-site assembly was much faster. This parallel workflow significantly shortened the overall project schedule, helping us meet tight deadlines.”
The platform-controlled design and manufacturing processes contributed to improving the building energy performance. Standardized modules incorporated optimized insulation and service integration, reducing thermal bridging and energy losses. One interviewee (I4) explained:
“The platform allowed us to achieve better insulation and service integration consistently across all modules. This led to improved energy performance that would have been difficult to achieve with traditional, on-site implementation.”
3.3. Technical Challenges
3.3.1. Procurement Challenges
Procurement poses a major technical challenge because existing frameworks may not align with platform standards and large-scale implementations. Late procurement hinders early design integration and disrupts the coordination of components from diverse local and international suppliers.
In the UK, fragmented input on platform systems leads to technical mismatches between designers and suppliers as well as delays due to post-design procurement decisions. In China, suppliers are not involved in the early design stages, and there is limited technical platform coordination because procurement is still isolated from design teams. In Jordan, limited coordination with technical requirements results in technical inconsistencies, especially for imported components. One interviewee (I2) explained:
“Implementing a platform requires changes to traditional procurement processes, but more importantly, it demands a transformation of the entire ecosystem, especially when it comes to large-scale projects.”
3.3.2. Process Challenges
Process variability limits standardization, and changing construction conditions require frequent adjustment of contracts, scopes, and specifications, despite a shared desire to achieve manufacturing-like precision.
In the UK, there is a strong push toward modern methods of construction, but their adoption is inconsistent across firms, leading to technical misalignment across platforms. In China, capabilities in manufacturing are stronger than design for manufacturing, which also affects the outcomes. In Jordan, fragmented working processes and inconsistent project delivery approaches create technical gaps and hinder the implementation of platform strategies. One interviewee (I9) noted the following:
“…Every project is handled differently. Thus, our working processes are fragmented; that is why we struggle to get consistency.”
Implementing a platform in the AEC industry involves several technical challenges, the foremost being the misalignment of project management and poor integration. Across the UK and China, platform projects struggle to standardize workflows, which results in inefficiencies in material handling, inconsistent supply chains as well as limited repeatability.
Rigid contractual frameworks hinder platform implementation by limiting collaboration, creating task misalignment, and reinforcing siloed working, especially in the UK, often raising concerns about responsibilities and intellectual property. One interviewee (I6) noted the following:
“Breaking and managing a project’s parts in isolation may seem efficient, but optimizing each part in isolation does not guarantee overall project success because these parts are interconnected. This can lead to overall inefficiencies, overlaps, or gaps. Success depends on understanding interdependencies and assigning responsibilities strategically. Traditional methods should not dictate roles; the process must evolve to serve the performance of the whole system.”
3.3.3. Technological Challenges
Technological challenges to platform implementation include poor structures, fragmented software, and low early-stage digital maturity. These challenges prevent the effective capture of operational data and create broken feedback loops within the system.
Although the UK has enacted BIM mandates, implementation remains inconsistent, and coordination across disciplines is still lacking because of fragmented software ecosystems. China has strong manufacturing capabilities but suffers from fragmented design–manufacturing integration and limited open data practices. Jordan has limited access to advanced digital tools and low investment in data infrastructure. One interviewee (I10) noted the following:
“What makes the platform approach compelling is its ability to align stakeholders around shared technologies. However, this alignment depends on foundational skills and a strong understanding of the core anchor portfolio products. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions; it is the connectivity enabled by technology that unifies the system.”
3.4. Human-Centric Challenges
3.4.1. Misconception
The human-centric challenges facing platform implementation include the misconception that platforms are only related to prefabrication, overlooking their broader role in integrating core assets from the early design stages.
Different countries generally have different ways of understanding the platform approach. The UK is considering a strategic shift toward platform thinking (not just technical prefabrication), integration between standardization and customization, and early collaboration among stakeholders influenced by governmental frameworks. In China, industrialized construction and prefabrication are prioritized to ensure speed and efficiency with little emphasis on design thinking. In Jordan, where the platform concept is still emerging, it is often understood as modular or prefabricated construction, with limited awareness of the strategic thinking involved. One interviewee (I4) explained:
“Having a clear definition of the platform concept helps reduce misunderstandings and misconceptions. However, each stakeholder interprets the platform through the lens of their specific role, leading to differing understandings of the concept.”
3.4.2. Barriers to the Mindset Shift
A shift in mindset is essential, requiring product-led thinking to simplify processes. Leadership from clients and stakeholders is crucial; their demand for platform delivery drives broader adoption, resulting in both immediate and long-term success. Additionally, cultural transformation must accompany operational and technological changes to adjust practices and adopt new ways of working. Shifting the focus from speed toward quality is challenging because contracts emphasizing rapid delivery limit incentives for platform-driven quality improvements across regions.
In the UK, there is a growing awareness of platform benefits, but resistance persists among designers who fear that standardization may constrain creativity. A limited number of successfully implemented projects exist to demonstrate the benefits of the platform approach, making it difficult to spread confidence in the approach. This often results in misaligned expectations and poor early-stage collaboration. One of the interviewees (I10) said:
“Most of the challenges we are dealing with currently are cultural mindset barriers, intellectual property, and risk allocation.”
In China, industrialization is primarily led by top–down decisions with leaders setting the direction. Designers have limited freedom to suggest or influence changes. As a result, the focus is on learning how the platform approach works and finding successful examples to follow rather than changing behavior. This contrasts with the situation in the UK, where active input and shared authorship are valued, often causing misalignment between the two countries. In Jordan, behavioral resistance is more pronounced, which is largely due to a lack of experience and access to appropriate tools. This resistance leads to significant communication breakdowns.
3.4.3. Collaboration Issues
Stakeholder collaboration is limited by data and knowledge sharing because of competitive pressures, outdated perceptions of risks, intellectual property concerns, incompatible tools, and a lack of training. These issues reflect a widespread cultural barrier, necessitating a unified behavioral shift for effective platform adoption. One interviewee (I7) explained:
“The major hurdle for platform implementation is the lack of collaboration and an outdated attitude to risk. Whatever your entry points seeking productivity, sustainability, or capacity, you end up with the same challenge.”
3.5. Technical Considerations in Platform Implementation
3.5.1. Modularization
Modular construction is not new, but interest in it is surging because of the growing need for large-scale applicability and rapid implementation. Traditionally, modular systems have relied on basic, standardized designs and conventional assembly methods. Today, innovation requires progress beyond outdated practices toward integrated platform approaches supported by academia–industry collaboration, standardized components, and strong, risk-taking leadership for lasting transformation. One interviewee (I8) said the following:
“The current modular and prefabricated system is based on using an undeveloped standardized, prefabricated construction system. While the retrofitting or strengthening of the structure to meet modern standards is based on the last century’s construction system.”
3.5.2. Standardization
Standardization is essential to platform-based construction, but its effectiveness depends on who defines the standards and their understanding of real construction practices. Too often, standards are developed by policymakers or market influencers who lack hands-on experience or focus on narrow applications without considering broader possibilities. Standards should be clear and met by practitioners with adaptable processes, not rigid rules, to enable innovation, scalability, and practical application. One interviewee (I3) explained:
“… I actually think that standardization can free up resources and allow much more time and effort to be invested in optimizing the design. Then, through repetition, the benefits are amplified. However, its creative potential remains underexplored and often misunderstood.”
3.5.3. Productization
Productization is the key that links design and market needs, leading to consistency, repeatability, and data-driven scalability. The industry is shifting from basic prefabrication toward integrated product systems, but progress remains limited because of the complexity involved. Without a structured and unified approach to productization, this complexity may limit the potential benefits of platform thinking. One interviewee (I5) noted the following:
“The most effective way to enable a platform is through productization. To achieve this, the AEC industry must move beyond traditional fabrication and embrace full productization.”
The platform work process was simplified by translating the design elements into a series of well-defined, market-ready products, such as standardized wall panels, service pods, and façade units. Establishing detailed product specifications and quality benchmarks allowed suppliers to produce components reliably across the project. However, securing long-term supplier engagement was difficult without stable procurement contracts, highlighting the need for stronger alignment between productization strategies and procurement practices.
Platform-based systems development aims to create repeatable, data-driven solutions with cross-industry relevance. Techniques such as set-based design and integrated project delivery reveal synergies while accounting for diverse stakeholder priorities. The goal is to establish standard systems executable by aligned contributors even without full global supply chain involvement. Nonetheless, discussions often emphasize value and process over true systems integration. Advancing platform thinking requires a deeper understanding of the project delivery ecosystem and the development of systems that support seamless collaboration and scalable applications. One interviewee (I10) explained:
“Adopting a platform requires companies to rethink how they engage with suppliers, clients, and the market, which in turn demands a re-evaluation of their business model, and component strategies within a system-of-systems framework.”
3.6. Human-Centric Considerations in Platform Implementation
3.6.1. Collaboration Among Stakeholders
Effective platform development relies on collaboration among clients, architects, contractors, and systems integrators. Architects or manufacturers may act as integrators, whereas clients often drive decisions by demanding structured data. This shift enables productization, freeing professionals to focus on high-value, customized work. When diverse stakeholders, including competitors, align under a shared platform, design and engineering languages integrate more naturally. Early coordination fosters shared understanding, operational consistency, and sustainable outcomes by blending deeper collaboration throughout the project life cycle. One interviewee (I11) explained:
“The lack of collaboration and unwillingness to share knowledge are widespread. That is why it is essential to continue to support each other and share insights to move forward together.”
3.6.2. Enabling the Mindset Shift
Implementing a platform in the AEC industry requires a fundamental shift from siloed workflows to collaborative ecosystems. It requires early stakeholder integration, a design that considers manufacturing and supply chain capabilities, and a systems focus rather than thinking in terms of isolated components. This system focus includes the consideration of connections, assembly sequences, and overall constructability. Notably, the focus must move from outputs, such as building completion, to outcomes, including how systems perform over time in terms of energy efficiency, ease of maintenance, and long-term adaptability. One interviewee (I8) noted the following:
“… Simplifying the design, embracing repeatability and commonality, and leveraging process improvements. This is how you start to unlock real value. However, it comes down to shifting mindsets. It is really all in the minds of people to really appreciate how much value there is for them.”
3.6.3. Knowledge Sharing
Effective knowledge sharing in a platform relies on openness, transparency, and trust among stakeholders. Silos must be deconstructed through shared digital environments where data, insights, and best practices can flow seamlessly. Standardized formats, clear communication protocols, and timely access to information are essential. Fostering a culture of continuous learning, thorough documentation, and structured feedback not only enhances project outcomes but also promotes the long-term evolution of the platform. One interviewee (I2) explained:
“I find the accumulation of knowledge particularly compelling. That is what makes a platform truly valuable and engaging.”
The results presented in this section reflect experts’ opinions on the state of the platform approach in the AEC industry and its effects on design and construction.
4. Design Model Results
This section presents details of the platform-based design model simulation and a comparison of the simulation results and those for the as-built traditional model. The results of this comparison complement the interview results in answering the research questions and gaps identified previously.
The as-built reference traditional model consists of 180 m
2 and 200 m
2 units with a total floor area of 410 m
2 on each floor. Each apartment includes two bedrooms, one large living room, a kitchen, a toilet, and a bathroom (
Figure 2). The main challenges with this building design and construction were late-stage design modifications, which resulted in significant rework and delays in the on-site construction work due to the client’s numerous design changes, fragmented coordination, and the absence of predefined spatial and service interfaces.
The modeled platform design was based on modularization, which played a crucial role in improving construction speed and quality in the design simulation. Modular room units were designed off-site with precise manufacturing controls, allowing multiple modules to be produced simultaneously in the factory. The implementation of standardized modular layouts enabled parallel design development across disciplines. This shift reduced iterative rework, enhanced coordination efficiency, and supported a more integrated and predictable design process.
The ability to standardize the structural systems of the modules helped to achieve scalability, as shown in
Figure 3, using different dimensions:
Type 1 (3.00 m × 7.20 m) was the standard unit used for living areas and kitchens, but in a few cases, it was used as a bedroom to achieve flexibility.
Type 2 (3.60 m × 7.20 m) was developed from Type 1 and was used for bedrooms, but in a few cases, it was used for living areas and kitchens to achieve flexibility.
Type 3 (1.20 m × 7.20 m) was a service unit used for bathrooms, corridors, and closets.
Figure 3.
The modeled platform design plans: (a) areas of the platform design; (b) new plan drawings details.
Figure 3.
The modeled platform design plans: (a) areas of the platform design; (b) new plan drawings details.
The use of standardized modules allowed the use of multiple layout configurations for different apartments to suit different families while maintaining consistent component interfaces, as shown in
Figure 4.
The number of openings was simplified, the number of door types was reduced from seven to three, and the number of window types was reduced from seven to two, as shown in
Figure 5. Standardization required scalability and alignment with the structural system, using a 0.3 m grid to streamline manufacturing. Additionally, the structural system integrated load-bearing and stabilizing elements within the modules with repeating I-columns spaced 0.60 m apart. This standardization simplified the configuration and customization.
The standardization led to reductions in offcuts and overruns, as components were produced to exact specifications with less variability compared to the traditional as-built reference model. The MTO for the as-built reference model is 398,157.24 JOD, as shown in
Table 2. The MTO for the simulated platform model is 290,175.75 JOD, as shown in
Table 3.
The use of standardized, repeatable components and processes in the simulated platform model shortened the estimated construction timeline significantly, suggesting that earlier occupancy could be achieved without compromising quality.
Figure 6 shows the timeline for the traditional as-built reference model, which spanned 17 months.
Figure 7 shows the timeline for the simulated platform model, which spanned 8 months.
The as-built reference model exhibited high energy consumption for lighting (20.45 W/m
2), and the effect of the window-to-wall ratio on the modeled energy use intensity (EUI) for the western wall, which is related to the wind direction at the project site, was responsible for 95% of the energy loss, as shown in
Figure 8. The platform design simulation enhanced performance by employing efficient lighting (7.53 W/m
2) through zoning and a standardized layout, and reducing energy loss by limiting the effect of the window-to-wall ratio on the modeled EUI for the western wall to 15% using repeatable façade modules, as shown in
Figure 9.
The early stages of the platform-based model revealed widespread confusion about the nature and purpose of the simulated platform design. Some team members assumed it referred only to modular construction, while others interpreted it as a set of software tools. This misunderstanding led to misaligned expectations and slowed progress in aligning design goals. Even with responsibilities defined among stakeholders, each team worked to optimize its scope in isolation, which initially appeared efficient. However, this approach made it necessary to standardize the shared spatial rules and predefined coordination zones to address the overlaps and misalignments that emerged from inadequate management. In addition, the adoption of a parallel workflow is anchored in a standardized spatial grid and predefined coordination zones. However, the lack of a shared process for early coordination delayed decision making and led to redundant design revisions.
The absence of a long-term procurement plan limited the ability to lock in preferred suppliers and hindered the consistency of prefabricated component delivery. In addition, delays occurred when subcontractors had to adjust their models manually to match the platform-based architectural definitions, highlighting gaps in both the tools and the workflows.
During the adoption of the simulated platform design, one of the most significant barriers emerged from within the design team itself. Architects accustomed to delivering bespoke, project-specific solutions expressed concern that standardized room types, grids, and interfaces would limit their creative input and reduce their perceived value in the design process. Some viewed the platform’s predefined components as restrictive, arguing that it undermined their ability to tailor designs to the unique context of each site. This resistance was particularly evident in the early design stages, where proposed adjustments to the platform layout were repeatedly introduced to personalize the scheme, often reintroducing complexity that the simulated platform model had aimed to eliminate. The resistance stemmed not from technical incapacity but from a cultural attachment to authorship and individuality in design.
In addition, the work patterns persisted among some disciplines with consultants reluctant to engage in joint model development or early-stage technical integration. Collaborative workshops were initially resisted or treated as non-essential. It took deliberate leadership intervention, including redefining roles around system performance rather than disciplines, to achieve meaningful collaboration and shift attitudes toward the platform as an integrated delivery model.
The use of the UniClass system helped to coordinate stakeholders across all project stages. Using UniClass ensures consistent data classification, enhances collaboration, supports BIM interoperability, and enables scalable, standardized information management across multiple assets and stages.
Figure 10 shows the component classifications in BIM Revit. Other components were chosen based on local availability.
The modeled platform-based design process was simplified by translating the design elements into a series of well-defined, market-ready products, such as standardized wall panels, service pods, and façade units. Establishing detailed product specifications and quality benchmarks allowed suppliers to produce components reliably across the project. However, securing long-term supplier engagement was difficult without stable procurement contracts, highlighting the need for stronger alignment between productization strategies and procurement practices.
The team invested in creating shared BIM libraries and adopting common modeling standards to support cross-disciplinary collaboration. Nevertheless, some subcontractors struggled with interoperability issues, requiring manual adjustments and slowing the process. These issues underscore the importance of continuous improvement in digital tools and standards to realize platform efficiencies fully.
During the adoption of the platform, fostering early and integrated collaboration was essential to overcoming traditional, siloed workflows. Initially, architects, engineers, and manufacturers worked largely independently, which led to misaligned expectations and delayed coordination. Introducing shared meetings and digital models helped bridge gaps, enabling teams to co-develop modules and systems in real time. This collaborative approach reduced conflicts during later stages and improved overall project efficiency.
A significant human challenge in the design simulation was facilitating the mindset shift required to adopt platform principles. Many team members were accustomed to delivering bespoke, one-off solutions and viewed standardization skeptically, fearing it would limit design creativity and professional autonomy. Leadership addressed these concerns through clear communication and training, emphasizing that the platform offered a framework for controlled flexibility rather than rigid restriction. Over time, this helped the team embrace the platform as a means to enhance, rather than hinder, innovation.
Table 4 compares the results for the as-built reference model and estimated alternative model based on cost, energy efficiency, and scheduling. This comparison reveals the estimated significant benefits of the platform approach. The platform-based model was estimated to lower costs by 27.12%. The ability to produce components at scale significantly lowered unit costs, mirroring manufacturing efficiencies. By repeating designs and manufacturing methods, the platform approach lowered materials, production, and professional service costs.
The platform approach was estimated to shorten the construction period by more than half, from 504 to 236 days, compared with the as-built reference model. This is because the working process was based on repeatable kit-of-parts components in the design process, resulting in significant reductions in the design time. The use of repeatable components allows workers to master repeated processes and achieve high throughput on various scales. For this reason, consistency in components and processes reduces coordination errors, leading to less work and waste.
The platform-based model was estimated to reduce energy consumption from 257 kWh/m
2/yr in the as-built reference model to 107 kWh/m
2/yr, as shown in
Figure 11. The improvements achieved in the lighting, plug load efficiency, and the effect of the window-to-wall ratio on the modeled EUI for the western wall underscore the importance of implementing innovative technology and testing iteratively to enhance the building design and track the design and materials in the early design stage to minimize energy consumption.
The modeled platform design highlighted the importance of systematic knowledge sharing to improve platform outcomes. Early pilot phases suffered from fragmented documentation and limited feedback loops, which slowed iterative improvements. To address this, the project team established centralized digital repositories and regular review sessions, ensuring that insights from the design, manufacturing, and construction phases were captured and disseminated. This culture of continuous learning strengthens platform refinement and helps prevent repeated errors across subsequent projects.
The estimated results presented in this section indicate that adopting a platform-based design approach to the design and construction of residential projects can yield measurable improvements in material costs, scheduling timelines, and energy performance.
5. Discussion
Little research has been conducted on platform applications in the AEC industry [
28], and previous studies on platform theory typically lack empirical data from practitioners [
27]. The present research fills these gaps by using stakeholder input to develop and simulate a platform design for a residential building.
This study examined platform definition within the context of residential construction in Irbid, Jordan. The findings show that platform thinking can be operationalized through technical standardization, repeatable design configurations, human-centric collaboration, and digital coordination. These features align with key definitions in the literature that describe platforms as integrated sets of systems and rules [
17,
41]. However, the results also show that the practical application of the platform approach depends heavily on local supply chain capacity and digital design integration. This suggests that context-specific adaptations of generic platform definitions are necessary. Therefore, this study refines existing definitions by emphasizing the operational link between digital modeling, modular grids, and local manufacturing capabilities in the AEC industry.
The findings of this study also show that theory and practice align on platform definition but differ in application [
22,
23]. Previous research, industry reports, and the results of the interviews agree that to achieve high-quality implementation, a platform should be considered a combination of systems and approaches [
17,
25,
41]. However, the perception of value creation differs between theory and industrial practice because of different needs and priorities among the stakeholders [
27]. In the design simulation, this range of interpretations became evident in early project meetings. The architectural team initially viewed the platform as a flexible kit of parts, while the structural engineers emphasized the technical rules. Aligning these perspectives was a critical first step in the platform transformation process.
The organizational, technological, and procedural principles from the interview results shaped the transformation of the design simulation. Organizationally, the client and design team adopted a shared decision-making framework. Technologically, a common BIM library of prefabricated room modules was developed. Procedurally, early-stage briefing templates and digital coordination routines were standardized across all units. The results of these principles align with the results from previous studies [
33,
34].
The interview and design model results show that platform implementation faces technical and human-centric challenges. The technical challenges explain the immaturity of digital design, the inadequate standardization of components, and the systemic misalignment of processes. These challenges make it difficult to coordinate and implement a platform in a design simulation smoothly and with stable procurement practices, especially in the early stages, because of poor management and leadership and limited experience in implementing the platform-based approach. These findings are consistent with other research [
42], which showed that poor standardization and digital design are prominent challenges.
Despite being from different countries, the interviewees agreed that human-centric challenges inhibit platform implementation and that overcoming these challenges requires a mindset shift that disrupts norms, habits, and power dynamics across the industry, which were consistent with the results of the design simulation, where many team members especially architects preferred to deliver traditional bespoke design solutions due to the limited understanding of platform thinking and its principles. As other researchers have noted [
4,
17], cultural resistance hinders platform acceptance. Hence, this shift needs to be translated across boundaries using communication protocols and joint standards.
The human-centric challenges identified in this study are consistent with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions [
43]. In particular, the power distance dimension is consistent with the findings of this research, highlighting the challenges associated with shifting behavior and hierarchical decision making, which limit collaboration and feedback. Among the countries compared in this research—the UK, China, and Jordan—the UK is a more individualistic culture [
4], which explains the stronger sense of individual ownership and intellectual property in that country, as opposed to the collectivism observed in the other two countries. Uncertainty avoidance is higher in Jordan and causes resistance to the unfamiliar simulated platform model. In the UK, this model is more readily adopted, and in China, acceptance of the model is more cautious and strategic. Both China and the UK tend to plan for the long term, making platform thinking more appealing and serving as examples to Jordan. However, misconceptions and misunderstandings still influence the openness to change and the shift toward a platform approach.
The interviewees’ comments reveal a deep understanding of and experience with platforms, stressing standardization and modularization as key enablers for conceptually “deconstructing” a building into repeatable components. The design model simulation implementation is based on three standardized modular types that simplify the work process. Transformation occurs through system development, productization, and the integration of design thinking with supply, manufacturing, and assembly via data, configurators, and rules, as noted in previous research [
39]. Productization transforms building elements into repeatable products with defined performance, pricing, supply chains, and life cycle management [
44]. This productization shifts the focus from project-oriented deliverables to scalable, repeatable components while transforming firms into product companies, as noted in previous studies [
45,
46].
The platform approach overcomes fragmentation in traditional construction through client-centric design, manufacturing-led thinking, and early supplier engagement, according to the interview results. However, the design model findings show that the traditional model hinders platform adoption because of informal processes and knowledge-sharing challenges, which is consistent with previous observations [
34,
47]. The ability to standardize components helps to reduce the number of building component types, simplifies design, and improves efficiency. Classifying components using UniClass enables clearer communication among stakeholders and digital coordination.
The estimated quantitative results of the design simulation are consistent with the qualitative findings gleaned from the interviews, especially the aspects related to the definition of a platform and the benefits of the simplified design. Increased productivity, scalability, and repeatability were predicted to result in cost and time savings and help to mitigate the adverse effects of complexity and an aging construction workforce.
The prevalence of informal design practices makes it difficult to document design knowledge and processes. Traditional design work processes are based on relationships with other stakeholders and involve high resistance to behavioral change. These can result in misunderstandings and miscommunication about the work process defined by the results of the design simulation. In addition, these issues are consistent with the human-centric challenges described in the interviews. The adoption of a platform design simulation also reveals issues associated with classifying and procuring components and materials, building the digital library, obtaining structured kit-of-parts systems, and lacking adequate standardization guidance. These issues are consistent with the technical and technological challenges identified in the interviews and previous studies [
14,
19,
48].
The comparison shows that the platform-based scenario is estimated to achieve a 27.12% reduction in material costs, a 53.17% decrease in scheduling time, and a 58.36% improvement in energy efficiency compared to the traditional as-built building. These results are consistent with previous findings [
49,
50,
51]. These quantitative improvements demonstrate how platform thinking, when applied through standardized modular design, repeatable configurations, and coordinated digital workflows, can translate key theoretical principles into measurable performance gains. This aligns with definitions in the literature that describe platform approaches as structured systems of standardized components, rules, and processes that enable efficiency, repeatability, and scalability [
16,
44,
52]. The significant reductions in material use and construction time reflect the core platform aim of minimizing waste through modular prefabrication and integrated supply chains. The enhanced energy performance highlights the potential for platform-based designs to optimize operational outcomes through coordinated digital modeling and feedback loops. Therefore, these findings contribute to the literature by demonstrating that in the context of the Jordanian residential sector, platform thinking is not limited to abstract modular principles but can deliver tangible improvements when supported by digital design tools, standardized classification systems, and supply chain alignment. This reinforces the idea that platform definitions in construction must account for the local context, digital integration, and practical implementation constraints [
45,
47,
53]. The case study also reveals practical barriers to implementation, such as supply chain coordination challenges, workforce skills gaps, and site logistics constraints. These findings indicate that the platform approach should not be viewed as a guaranteed solution but rather as a promising strategy that requires careful contextual adaptation and supportive governance.
This study was limited to a single residential building in a specific regional context, which may constrain the broader applicability of the results. The design model simulation findings are based on modeled estimates and depend heavily on the accuracy of the underlying assumptions regarding material costs, scheduling timelines, and energy performance. These assumptions were informed by local supplier data, standard simulation inputs, and expert judgment, but real-world outcomes may differ due to site-specific conditions or unforeseen implementation factors. The interview data may be biased, as the participants were professionals already familiar with, or connected to, the platform concept through their networks or firms. As a result, their views may not fully represent the wider range of perspectives within the AEC industry, particularly those of smaller contractors or policymakers. The simulation results are also constrained by the capabilities and assumptions of the software tools used, which may not capture all platform thinking and the real-world complexities of construction processes. Furthermore, the platform was built based on the participating firm’s resources and opportunities. Further practical implementation challenges remain, including the need for industry-wide collaboration to develop and maintain digital libraries of standardized components, which currently rely on dismantling and reusing elements from past projects.
Future research should examine additional technological adaptation challenges and practical applications of the platform approach, taking into consideration the human-centric issues involved and behavioral shifts required for platform implementation. Successful applications of the platform approach will encourage its greater acceptance by stakeholders [
19,
53].
6. Conclusions
This research used (1) primary data from semi-structured interviews to describe practitioners’ experiences and knowledge regarding platforms in the AEC industry and (2) a design simulation to demonstrate how the interview results apply to a practical platform implementation. The results of the interviews were used to develop a platform definition based on the participants’ perspectives, the core principles and benefits of the platform approach, and process transformation from traditional on-site construction to industrialized platform construction. The interview results also describe the challenges facing the implementation of the platform approach and technical and human-centric considerations for its implementation.
The design model simulation results confirm that a platform-based approach can deliver significant improvements in material efficiency, scheduling, and energy performance compared to traditional methods. However, several practical challenges must be addressed for successful platform implementation, including technical, technological, and organizational challenges. The interview and design simulation results reveal barriers to implementation and illustrate that the full potential of platform approach in the AEC industry depends on balancing its advantages with strategies to overcome implementation barriers.
The material costs, energy efficiency, and scheduling efficiency of an as-built reference building model and a simulated platform-based alternative building model were compared. The estimated results of the comparison are consistent with the findings concerning the benefits of the platform approach identified in the practitioner interviews. The results of both the interviews and the design simulation underscore the importance, potential, and challenges of the platform approach in the AEC industry. However, the successful implementation of the platform approach will require ongoing development. From a practical perspective, the findings offer guidance for cutting costs and scaling efficiently using standardized, repeatable components that align with various market needs.
The timeliness of this study lies in its alignment with ongoing industry transformations, particularly the increasing adoption of industrialized construction techniques and standardized building systems. As public and private sectors increasingly invest in platforms to boost productivity and sustainability, identifying the definitions, benefits, and challenges of platforms as perceived by practitioners provides valuable insights into the current state of platform-based building construction and future directions for its research and practical development.
The novelty of this research is reflected in its methodology, which combines semi-structured interviews of diverse stakeholders with a detailed analysis of design models. Previous studies have often approached platforms from top–down theoretical or policy perspectives. This study is unique in that it foregrounds the perspectives of those designing, coordinating, and delivering projects through platform methods. This bottom–up lens offers a richer and clearer understanding of how platform principles are interpreted and applied in practice.
The significance of this research lies in its potential to inform both academic discourse into and the estimated practical implementation of platform-based building construction. By synthesizing interview findings with findings from the design simulation, the research identifies recurring themes, challenges, and considerations that can guide future platform research and development strategies. The findings highlight the importance of clear standardization, productization, systems development, stakeholder alignment, and scalable knowledge-sharing mechanisms—factors that are critical for platform success but are often underdeveloped and neglected. These findings contribute to the ability of the AEC industry to facilitate platform implementations and more grounded and practice-relevant academic literature on innovation in the AEC industry.