System-Level Critical Success Factors for BIM Implementation in Construction Management: An AHP Approach

Abstract

Digital tools are transforming the construction industry, reshaping how projects are designed, managed, and delivered. Building Information Modeling (BIM), a cornerstone of this transformation, requires a systemic approach because its implementation spans several organization functions, involves multiple stakeholders, and encompasses all phases of the project life cycle. While extensive literature examines BIM adoption, there is no consensus on its key enablers and barriers nor a ranking of their impact on implementation success. This study investigates the system-level critical success factors (CSFs) for BIM adoption in construction management. First, it reviews earlier literature, identifying 18 CSFs across six dimensions: change management, process efficiency, regulatory compliance, strategic alignment, technology integration, and user training and support. Next, it utilizes the AHP method to rank the CSFs based on the data collected from 31 construction professionals. Results highlight the importance of aligning BIM initiatives with organizational strategies, streamlining workflows, fostering collaboration, and ensuring compliance with evolving regulations. The research concludes that effective BIM implementation requires holistic strategies that emphasize leadership, scalable technology integration, comprehensive training, and adaptability. By addressing these system-level CSFs, organizations can enhance efficiency, drive innovation, and strengthen resilience in an evolving construction landscape.

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, the construction industry has witnessed the proliferation of new digital tools and associated processes. These advances have redefined the way projects are designed, managed, and delivered, setting new standards for efficiency and collaboration among stakeholders [1]. However, implementing digital tools is not always straightforward, as they often impact multiple functions within construction companies.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) has emerged as one of the most widely adopted among the new tools. Integrating key features of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Digital Twin technology [2,3], BIM encompasses the entire project life cycle—from initial design to facility management—unifying construction management within a cohesive digital framework [4,5]. By increasing transparency, reducing fragmentation, and aligning workflows with organizational strategies, BIM significantly improves the efficiency and adaptability of project delivery [6].

Despite its benefits, BIM adoption presents significant challenges. The technology requires systemic changes to business processes, from managing stakeholder resistance to change to ensuring compatibility with existing construction workflows [7,8]. Identifying critical success factors (CSFs) becomes critical to assessing the maturity of BIM implementation [9,10]. The CSFs must be system-level, i.e., encompass different functions within an organization, consider different stakeholder perspectives, and span the entire project life cycle.

Current research lacks a consistent and widely accepted identification and ranking of system-level CSFs for BIM adoption. Most studies focus on specific construction phases [11], geographic regions [12,13], or project-specific characteristics [14,15], leading to fragmented findings. Furthermore, although factors such as technology integration [16], process improvement [3], and organizational change management [17] are often highlighted, there is no consensus on their importance for successful BIM implementation. This lack of agreement leads to inefficient resource allocation and misaligned efforts among stakeholders.

The objective of this study is to enhance construction management by investigating system-level CSFs for BIM adoption. It aims to bridge the gap between theoretical research on CSFs and the practical experiences of construction professionals implementing BIM in real-world projects. CSFs are identified through a comprehensive literature review and ranked using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, leveraging empirical data collected from a survey of experienced construction management professionals.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 1 introduced the background, significance, and objective of the study. Section 2 reviews studies proposing on BIM success and blocking factors. Section 3 describes the AHP method. Section 4 presents both the aggregated and individual CSFs ranking. Section 5 discusses the results in light of previous studies, providing both theoretical and practical considerations. Finally, Section 6 outlines the limitations of the study and suggests directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

This section reviews previous research on BIM success factors and blockers as well as studies proposing and ranking specific CSFs.

2.1. Success Factors

BIM implementation depends on several factors, including technological, organizational, human resource, and process-related considerations.

2.1.1. Technological

Technological factors include software selection, interoperability, and digital infrastructure development [11].

The choice of BIM software is strategic, influencing project workflows’ efficiency and effectiveness. Software must meet technical requirements while ensuring compatibility with other tools to enable seamless collaboration.

Interoperability is essential to prevent data silos, which can lead to miscommunication, delays, and cost overruns [18].

Integrating interoperable software with robust digital infrastructure enhances collaboration and streamlines workflows across construction projects [19]. High-performance computing systems, reliable storage, and real-time communication networks are necessary to facilitate efficient data exchange and dynamic modeling [20,21]. Without such systems, BIM key benefits, such as real-time updates and data-driven decision making, cannot be fully realized [22,23].

2.1.2. Organizational and Strategic

Organizational and strategic factors include executive commitment and stakeholder engagement.

Executive commitment extends beyond allocating resources, as it involves cultivating a culture of innovation and spearheading digital transformation within the organization. Sustained and visible leadership support ensures that BIM initiatives align with the organization’s broader strategic objectives, framing them as essential efforts to enhance efficiency, competitiveness, and innovation [24]. Additionally, strong leadership is instrumental in addressing resistance to change, a prevalent challenge in the construction industry, by facilitating a smoother transition to digital workflows [7].

Effective stakeholder engagement ensures that all professionals are aligned with project objectives and collaboratively contribute their expertise. Given BIM’s inherently collaborative nature, maintaining consistent communication among architects, engineers, contractors, and clients is critical to avoiding misunderstandings and fostering a unified approach to problem solving. Such alignment improves both daily operations and strategic decision making, enabling projects to adapt dynamically to evolving conditions [25]. Research demonstrates that robust communication channels significantly enhance the success of BIM implementation by expediting decisions, reducing errors, and minimizing delays [24].

2.1.3. Human Resources

Key priorities in human resources and skills include training, skills development, and change management [9].

The transition to BIM requires substantial investment in training to ensure that users can effectively operate the sophisticated tools and software associated with it. Insufficient training can result in significant challenges, including errors in BIM models, operational inefficiencies, and resistance from staff accustomed to traditional practices [20].

Ongoing training and upskilling are necessary to sustain workforce competency and adaptability as technology evolves. This enables organizations to fully leverage BIM potential while mitigating associated risks [26]. By integrating continuous skills development with strategic change management, organizations can ensure that BIM implementation is both effective and sustainable, aligning with their long-term objectives [24].

Change management plays a pivotal role in overcoming resistance to BIM adoption, particularly in the conservative organizations. Unmanaged resistance can derail even the most well-planned BIM initiatives, underscoring the need for proactive approaches. These approaches should include comprehensive training programs, transparent communication about BIM benefits, and active employee involvement in the transition process. Addressing employee concerns and illustrating how digital workflows enhance daily tasks and overall efficiency are critical for reducing resistance and fostering acceptance [7].

2.1.4. Process and Workflow

Process and workflow factors include standardization, legal considerations, sustainability, and efficiency.

The lack of standardized processes and legal recognition can hinder consistency and reliability. Standardization ensures that BIM models are consistent, accurate, and legally valid throughout all project phases, minimizing errors and enabling smoother project delivery [27].

The legal recognition of BIM as a primary contract document can streamline workflows, reduce reliance on traditional 2D drawings, and help resolve disputes arising from documentation discrepancies. Research links standardized BIM practices to improved project outcomes, including higher rates of on-time and on-budget delivery [28].

In addition to enhancing operational efficiency, BIM promotes sustainability by enabling accurate resource management and waste reduction. BIM models facilitate scenario simulations, allowing teams to optimize designs for energy efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, thereby supporting sustainable construction practices [24]. This dual focus on sustainability and efficiency aligns with the industry’s move toward greener practices while reducing costs associated with waste and inefficiency.

2.2. Blockers

While the advantages of digitizing construction processes through BIM and related technologies are well established, transitioning from traditional methods to digital workflows faces several blockers. Understanding these obstacles is essential for devising strategies to facilitate smoother transitions and maximize BIM potential [29]. Key barriers to BIM implementation include organizational and internal resistance to change, high implementation costs, interoperability issues, and data management and security concerns.

2.2.1. Organizational Resistance to Change

Adopting digital tools like BIM often requires a cultural shift within organizations, moving from traditional hierarchical structures to more collaborative and integrated workflows [30]. However, deeply rooted organizational cultures can make such transitions challenging. Cultivating a culture of innovation and flexibility demands sustained effort and strong leadership commitment [31].

Continuous learning and development programs are crucial for bridging skill gaps and equipping employees with the technical and adaptive capabilities required for successful BIM adoption [32]. Despite the growing need for a workforce skilled in digital construction technologies, the construction industry often faces a significant gap between the skills available and those necessary for effective BIM implementation [33]. This gap can lead to inefficiencies and errors as workers struggle to adapt to new technologies without sufficient training and support. Investing in workforce development is essential to unlocking the benefits of digital transformation and improving project outcomes [34].

2.2.2. Internal Resistance to Change

Resistance to change poses a substantial barrier to digital transformation in an industry heavily reliant on traditional workflows and practices. Technologies like BIM are frequently met with skepticism, particularly by workers accustomed to manual processes, complicating the transition to digital tools [30]. Overcoming such resistance requires a comprehensive change management strategy that includes transparent communication, visible leadership support, and active employee involvement [32]. Addressing employee concerns, building trust, and demonstrating the tangible benefits of digital workflows are critical steps to drive adoption and ensure smoother implementation [33].

2.2.3. Implementation Costs

High implementation costs are a significant barrier to BIM adoption, especially for small and mid-sized construction firms. Initial investments in software, hardware, and training can be prohibitively expensive, particularly when the immediate financial returns are uncertain [31]. Additionally, ongoing expenses for system maintenance, updates, and technical support add to the financial burden. While the long-term benefits of BIM and digital transformation are well established, these upfront costs often deter organizations from fully committing to these initiatives [15].

2.2.4. Interoperability Issues

Interoperability challenges must be addressed to realize the collaborative potential of BIM and support its effective adoption [35]. BIM relies on the integration of multiple software platforms, each operating with different data standards and formats. This fragmentation can hinder information sharing between systems and stakeholders, leading to inefficiencies and increased risks of errors [36]. The lack of industry-wide standards for data exchange and software compatibility exacerbates these issues, further complicating the adoption process [37].

2.2.5. Data Management and Security

Managing and securing large volumes of data is a significant challenge in BIM adoption. The rapid digitization of construction processes has led to an exponential increase in data, including sensitive information such as designs, schedules, and cost estimates [30]. This requires a robust IT infrastructure and stringent data management protocols to ensure accuracy, security, and accessibility. However, many construction firms are ill prepared to address these requirements, leaving them vulnerable to data breaches and other security risks [31].

2.3. Ranking Studies

Numerous studies have identified and attempted to rank CSFs for BIM adoption, focusing on specific phases, regional contexts, individual factors, and project characteristics.

Research targeting particular phases of BIM implementation highlights unique challenges and determinants of success. da Silva et al. [26] emphasized the critical role of BIM in the design phase, demonstrating how early and accurate visualization enhances risk management and reduces rework. Similarly, Aladayleh and Aladaileh [38] applied the AHP method to show the impact of BIM-based risk management strategies on improving project performance. Focusing on operational CSFs during the construction and operation phases, Chegu Badrinath and Hsieh [34] underscored the importance of tailored strategies to optimize outcomes in these stages.

Several studies have examined BIM adoption within specific national or regional contexts, revealing the significance of policies, industry maturity, and cultural factors. Ozorhon and Karahan [9] identified key enablers in Turkey, such as skilled personnel and leadership, structured within human, policy, and resource-related factors. In Brazil, where BIM maturity remains low in the public sector, de Brito et al. [39] emphasized the importance of regulatory support and institutional readiness. Similarly, Gorenc and Dobrovoljc [40] highlighted productivity improvements and staff empowerment as critical enablers in Slovenia but noted that misconceptions about BIM hinder broader adoption.

Studies focusing on specific factors offer deeper insights into their roles in BIM success. Antwi-Afari et al. [12] identified collaboration and stakeholder alignment as universal enablers for successful BIM adoption. In developing countries, Tan et al. [41] found that organizational readiness and competitive advantage were critical factors driving implementation. Additionally, Schery et al. [42] employed a fuzzy multicriteria approach to prioritize legal, technical, and process factors, especially in public-sector BIM projects.

Research on project-specific factors shows how the type and scale of projects influence CSFs. Phang et al. [43] emphasized the necessity of supply chain integration for precast concrete manufacturing, addressing barriers like interoperability challenges. Similarly, Oluleye et al. [44] focused on data interoperability and technology readiness as key enablers for BIM-based facility management, directly tackling technological barriers to adoption.

These studies collectively illustrate the multifaceted nature of BIM adoption and underscore the need for a holistic approach to addressing CSFs. However, the existing literature remains fragmented, with research often confined to specific phases, regions, or factors, limiting its applicability to broader contexts.

3. Research Methods

The research comprised two steps: identifying CSFs and applying the AHP method. The first step reviewed previous studies to extract the CSFs. The second step designed a survey to collect data and applied the AHP method to calculate the relative weights of the identified CSFs.

The AHP method was selected for its reliability as a multicriteria decision-making technique. It ranks alternatives using empirical data derived from pairwise comparisons of expert judgments, minimizing bias and including a consistency check [45,46]. Additionally, it has already been used in previous studies for similar purposes, such as those by AbuMoeilak et al. [24], Desbalo and Woldesenbet [47], and Aladayleh and Aladaileh [38].

3.1. Criteria Identification

The literature review employed Scopus and Google Scholar databases.

We used the following search query used to scan article titles, abstracts, or keywords: (“BIM” OR “Building Information Modeling” OR “Building Information Modelling”) AND (“CSF” OR “critical success factor” OR “blocker” OR “enabler” OR “obstacle” OR “challenge”).

Only journal and conference papers written in English were included. Backward and forward citation searches broadened the review, uncovering additional relevant references. The inclusion criteria focused on the study’s scope, methodology, and alignment with the objective of identifying factors influencing BIM implementation. Multiple authors collaboratively analyzed the studies to ensure a thorough and unbiased evaluation.

3.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process

The AHP method comprised three phases: hierarchy design, data collection, and evaluation. Hierarchy design involves organizing the CSFs into a structured hierarchy to define the CSFs dimensions. Data collection involves developing the survey and submitting it to experts. Lastly, evaluation involves applying the eigenvalue method to calculate the relative weights of the CSFs and performing the consistency check.

Invitations were extended to 40 professionals with key decision-making roles in the construction industry. These roles included construction management, pre-construction planning, engineering oversight, and project feasibility analysis, ensuring a diverse and knowledgeable respondent pool. The selection of professionals was based on the following criteria to ensure relevant and accurate data:

• At least 5 years of experience in the construction industry.
• Experience in both construction and pre-construction phases.
• Currently working in Europe with familiarity in European standards and regulations.
• Actively involved in large-scale projects within large organizations.
• A career spanning more than one company to ensure diverse perspectives.

The survey was structured to include pairwise comparison questions for all identified CSFs. Professionals were asked to evaluate the relative importance of each pair using the Saaty scale [48]:

• 1: $C_i$ is of equal importance to $C_j$.
• 3: $C_i$ is slightly more important than $C_j$.
• 5: $C_i$ is more important than $C_j$.
• 7: $C_i$ is strongly more important than $C_j$.
• 9: $C_i$ is extremely more important than $C_j$.

Intermediate values of 2, 4, 6, and 8 were used for compromise judgments when the importance fell between two levels on the scale. The survey was administered online using a secure platform to ensure accessibility and ease of use. Data were collected anonymously to prevent bias.

The survey answers were used to construct the pairwise comparison matrix $\mathbf{A}$.

Each element $a_{ij}$ in the matrix represents the relative importance of CSF $C_i$ compared to $C_j$. Let n be the total number of CSFs. Then, the $\mathbf{A}$ matrix is structured as follows:

$$\mathbf{A}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1& a_{12}& a_{13}& \cdots & a_{1n}\\ 1/a_{12}& 1& a_{23}& \cdots & a_{2n}\\ ⋮& ⋮& ⋮& \ddots & ⋮\\ 1/a_{1n}& 1/a_{2n}& 1/a_{3n}& \cdots & 1\end{array}\right]$$

The diagonal elements of the matrix are always 1, as each CSF is equally important as itself. The reciprocal property ensures consistency, meaning that $a_{ij}=1/a_{ji}$.

Once the pairwise comparison matrix was constructed, the next step was to normalize $\mathbf{A}$ by dividing each element in column j by the sum of column j:

$$a_{ij}^{\prime }={\displaystyle \frac{a_{ij}}{{\sum }_{i=1}^n{a}_{ij}}}$$

The priority weight for each criterion was then calculated by averaging the row values:

$$w_i={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{j=1}^n{a}_{ij}^{\prime }}{n}}$$

This priority weight vector $w=[w_1,w_2,\dots ,w_n]$ represents the relative importance of each criterion, and the sum of all weights equals 1.

The consistency check was performed by analyzing the consistency ratio ($CR$):

$$CR={\displaystyle \frac{CI}{RI}}$$

where $CI$ denotes the consistency index, which was calculated as per

$$CI={\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}}$$

with ${\lambda }_{max}$ as the principal eigenvalue and $RI$ as the random index calculated from random consistency matrices. If $CR\le 0.1$, the inconsistency is considered acceptable.

4. Results

4.1. Critical Success Factors

The literature review focused on 26 articles, yielding a total of 18 CSFs.

Table 1. Identified CSFs.

ID	CSF	Study
1	Adaptability to Legal Requirements	[35]
2	Adherence to Industry Standards	[2,19,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]
3	Alignment with Organizational Vision	[2,24,33,35,51,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]
4	Workflow Streamlining	[2,16,33,50,53,54,55,58,59,60,61,62,63]
5	IT Compatibility	[6,16,24,33,49,50,51,52,55,56,59,61,62,64,65,66,67]
6	Contribution to Strategic Business Objectives	[2,50,55,57,58,59,61,63,64,65,66]
7	Documentation Capabilities	[2,19,24,33,49,50,51,53,54,55,58,61,62,63,67]
8	Workflow Integration	[2,16,19,33,56,57,62,64,65,66]
9	Competitive Advantage	[6,16,24,54,60,64,65]
10	Data Accuracy	[2,6,16,50,51,53,54,55,56,57,59,60,65,67]
11	Interoperability	[24,52,53,54,56,58,59,60,64,67]
12	Long-Term Value Creation	[6,16,24,35,51,54,64,65,66,67]
13	Management Support	[2,33,35,50,51,56,58,59,61,62,63]
14	Training Resources	[16,24,64,65]
15	Support Services	[58,59]
16	Process Time Reduction	[2,6,19,24,50,55,57,63,66]
17	Change Resistance	[16,64,65,66]
18	User-Friendliness	[33]

presents the proposed CSFs alongside the studies in which they are mentioned.

The CSFs are explained as follows:

1.

Adaptability to Legal Requirements: assesses the flexibility of BIM to adapt to changing laws and regulations across different regions and over time.

2.

Adherence to Industry Standards: evaluates how well the BIM implementation complies with relevant industry standards and legal regulations, ensuring compliance and avoiding liabilities.

3.

Alignment with Organizational Vision: assesses how effectively BIM aligns with the broader strategic objectives of the organization.

4.

Workflow Streamlining: focuses on BIM’s ability to enhance operational efficiency by streamlining construction processes.

5.

IT Compatibility: evaluates how easily BIM integrates with current operational systems without causing disruption.

6.

Contribution to Strategic Business Objectives: measures BIM alignment with and support for the organization’s long-term goals, such as efficiency, innovation, and competitiveness.

7.

Documentation Capabilities: assesses BIM’s ability to provide comprehensive documentation and audit trails for compliance and quality assurance.

8.

Workflow Integration: evaluates the resources and support provided by management for seamless BIM adoption.

9.

Competitive Advantage: assesses BIM impact on improving the organization’s competitiveness through better project outcomes, cost savings, or service quality.

10.

Data Accuracy: examines BIM’s effectiveness in enhancing data accuracy and reducing manual errors.

11.

Interoperability: evaluates BIM’s ability to exchange data and work seamlessly with other tools and software.

12.

Long-Term Value Creation: assesses BIM’s potential to enable sustained value creation and unlock new opportunities for the organization.

13.

Management Support: evaluates the commitment and resources provided by leadership to facilitate BIM adoption and integration.

14.

Training Resources: refers to the availability and quality of training programs that equip users with essential BIM skills.

15.

Support Services: assesses the reliability and quality of ongoing technical support and maintenance services for BIM.

16.

Process Time Reduction: evaluates BIM’s impact on reducing the time required for project completion.

17.

Change Resistance: assesses the effectiveness of strategies aimed at managing resistance from employees during BIM adoption.

18.

User-Friendliness: measures how intuitive and user-friendly BIM software is, enabling smoother adaptation and use.

Table 2. CSFs mapping.

		ID
Entry		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Success Factor	Technological					✔			✔		✔	✔				✔			✔
	Organizational and Strategic			✔			✔			✔			✔	✔				✔
	Human Resources														✔	✔			✔
	Process and Workflow				✔				✔		✔						✔
Blockers	Organizational Resistance to Change			✔			✔			✔			✔	✔				✔
	Internal Resistance to Change			✔	✔					✔				✔	✔	✔		✔	✔
	Implementation Costs					✔			✔
	Interoperability Issues		✔			✔			✔			✔
	Data Management and Security	✔	✔					✔			✔

maps the proposed CSFs to the success and blocking factors identified in Section 2.

The CSFs were grouped into six dimensions, each representing a critical area that contributes to the overall success of BIM implementation.

Table 3. CSF dimensions.

ID	Dimension	CSF ID
A	Change Management	3, 13, 17
B	Process Efficiency	4, 10, 16
C	Regulatory Compliance	1, 2, 7
D	Strategic Alignment	6, 9, 12
E	Technology Integration	5, 8, 11
F	User Training and Support	14, 15, 18

lists the six dimensions and their CSFs.

The dimensions are explained as follows:

A.

Change Management: highlights the importance of management support to address resistance to change, align BIM strategies with organizational goals, and prepare for digital transformation.

B.

Process Efficiency: encompasses workflow streamlining, process time reduction, and improved data accuracy, enhancing operational efficiency and productivity in construction projects.

C.

Regulatory Compliance: focuses on adherence to industry standards, adaptability to regulatory changes, and robust documentation to ensure legal compliance and project success.

D.

Strategic Alignment: stresses the alignment of BIM initiatives with organizational strategic goals, including long-term value creation and competitive advantage.

E.

Technology Integration: addresses IT compatibility, workflow integration, and interoperability with other tools, which are crucial for successful BIM adoption.

F.

User Training and Support: covers the availability of training resources, user-friendliness of BIM software, and provision of support services to ensure effective implementation and maintenance.

4.2. Respondents

Among the 40 professionals contacted, 31 provided responses.

Table 4. Respondents’ role distribution.

Role	Frequency
Construction Manager	19
Pre-Construction Feasibility Manager	3
Pre-Construction Lead	2
Structural Manager	2
D&C Technical Leader	1
Construction Technology Manager	1
MEP Manager	1
Director	1
Geo-Technical Manager	1

presents the distribution of respondents by role. Notably, the Construction Manager role was the most represented with 19 respondents holding this key position.

Table 5. Respondents nationality distribution.

Country	Frequency
UK	13
Italy	11
Spain	11
Luxembourg	10
France	5
Germany	4
Greece	4
USA	3
Denmark	2
Netherlands	2
UAE	2
Ireland	2
Quatar	1
Syria	1
Scotland	1
Israel	1
Colombia	1
Argentina	1
Romania	1
Ecuador	1
Belgium	1
Mexico	1
China	1
Equatorial Guinea	1
Cuba	1
Panama	1

summarizes the distribution of respondents by country of professional experience. The 31 respondents collectively bring expertise from 26 different countries, highlighting the international scope of the survey. The UK has the largest number of professionals with 13, followed by Italy and Spain with 11 each, and Luxembourg with 10.

4.3. Overall Dimensions Results

Table 6. CSFs dimensions results.

ID	Dimension	Weight	Rank	$\mathit{CI}$	$\mathit{CR}$
D	Strategic Alignment	0.259	1	0.726	0.099
B	Process Efficiency	0.251	2	0.792	0.009
E	Technology Integration	0.150	3	0.792	0.097
A	Change Management	0.142	3	0.738	0.003
C	Regulatory Compliance	0.105	4	0.691	0.008
F	User Training and Support	0.093	5	0.734	0.002

presents the weights assigned to each dimension. The results show an overall $CR$ of 1.6%, indicating a strong agreement among the experts’ judgments, and a $CI$ of 37.29%, reflecting some divergence in professionals’ opinions. Strategic Alignment and Process Efficiency were the highest-ranked dimensions with weights of 25.9% and 25.1%, respectively. Following these are Technology Integration and Change Management with weights of 15% and 14.2%. Regulatory Compliance and User Training and Support ranked the lowest with weights of 10.5% and 9.3%, respectively.

Table 7. Overall CSFs results.

Dimension ID	CSF	Weight	Rank
B	Workflow Streamlining	0.107	1
D	Contribution to Strategic Business Objectives	0.105	2
D	Competitive Advantage	0.087	3
B	Process Time Reduction	0.081	4
E	IT Compatibility	0.079	5
A	Management Support	0.070	6
D	Long-Term Value Creation	0.067	7
B	Data Accuracy	0.062	8
C	Adaptability to Legal Requirements	0.056	9
E	Workflow Integration	0.053	10
F	User-Friendliness	0.049	11
A	Change Resistance	0.037	12
A	Alignment with Organizational Vision	0.035	13
C	Adherence to Industry Standards	0.033	14
F	Training Resources	0.026	15
F	Support Services	0.018	16
E	Interoperability	0.017	17
C	Documentation Capabilities	0.016	18

presents the weights assigned to each CSF. Workflow Streamlining ranks the highest at 10.7%, followed by Contribution to Strategic Business Objectives at 10.5% and Competitive Advantage at 8.7%, emphasizing their critical roles in improving efficiency and aligning with organizational strategies. Lower-ranked factors, such as Support Services at 1.8% and Documentation Capabilities at 1.6%, represent less immediate priorities but remain relevant for successful BIM implementation.

4.4. Individual Dimension Results

4.4.1. Strategic Alignment

Table 8. Strategic Alignment CSFs results.

ID	CSF	Weight	Rank
6	Contribution to Strategic Business Objectives	0.404	1
9	Competitive Advantage	0.337	2
12	Long-Term Value Creation	0.259	3

provides the weight and rank of the Strategic Alignment CSFs. The resulting $CR$ is 9.9%, indicating a reasonable level of confidence in the results, and a $CI$ of 72.6%, indicating strong agreement among the experts surveyed. Contribution to Strategic Business Objectives was identified as the most important factor with a weight of 40.4%, significantly outweighing other criteria. This was followed by Competitive Advantage at 33.7%, while Long-Term Value Creation ranked lowest within this dimension at 25.9%.

4.4.2. Process Efficiency

Table 9. Process Efficiency CSFs results.

ID	CSF	Weight	Rank
4	Workflow Streamlining	0.428	1
16	Process Time Reduction	0.323	2
10	Data Accuracy	0.249	3

provides the weight and rank of the Process Efficiency CSFs. The resulting $CR$ is 0.9%, confirming the reliability of the experts’ judgments, and a $CI$ of 79.2%, reflecting a high level of agreement in their evaluations. The most influential criterion was Capability to Streamline Workflow, with a weight of 42.8%, emphasizing its critical importance in enhancing efficiency during construction digitization. Reducing in Process Time ranked second at 32.3%, underscoring the value of time efficiency, while Data Accuracy ranked third at 24.9%, remaining a vital factor despite its lower weight.

4.4.3. Technology Integration

Table 10. Technology integration CSFs results.

ID	CSF	Weight	Rank
5	IT Compatibility	0.531	1
8	Workflow Integration	0.355	2
11	Interoperability	0.115	3

provides the weight and rank of the Technology Integration CSFs. The resulting $CR$ is 9.7%, confirming the reliability of the experts’ judgments, and a $CI$ of 79.2%, indicating strong agreement on the importance of the criteria. IT Compatibility emerged as the most influential criterion with a weight of 53.1%, highlighting the critical need for the seamless integration of new digital tools, such as BIM, into existing technology frameworks. Workflow Integration ranked second at 35.5%, emphasizing the importance of minimizing disruption during implementation. Interoperability ranked third at 11.5%, underscoring its role in ensuring effective collaboration across different systems.

4.4.4. Change Management

Table 11. Change Management CSFs results.

ID	CSF	Weight	Rank
13	Management Support	0.493	1
17	Change Resistance	0.258	2
3	Alignment with Organizational Vision	0.248	2

provides the weight and rank of the Change Management CSFs. The resulting $CR$ is 0.3% and a $CI$ of 73.8%, the results show strong agreement on the identified success factors. Management Support emerged as the most critical factor, with a weight of 49.3%, emphasizing the essential role of leadership and commitment in driving successful BIM adoption. Change Resistance and Alignment with Organizational Vision follow with weights of 25.8% and 24.8%, respectively, highlighting their equal importance in managing change effectively.

4.4.5. Regulatory Compliance

Table 12. Regulatory Compliance CSFs results.

ID	CSF	Weight	Rank
1	Adaptability to Legal Requirements	0.531	1
2	Adherence to Industry Standards	0.316	2
7	Documentation Capabilities	0.153	3

provides the weight and rank of the Regulatory Compliance CSFs. The resulting $CR$ is 0.8%, confirming the reliability of the judgments, and a moderate $CI$ of 69.1%, indicating reasonable agreement among experts. Adaptability to Legal Requirements emerged as the most critical factor with a weight of 53.1%, emphasizing the need for flexible BIM processes to accommodate evolving regulatory frameworks essential for long-term success. Adherence to Industry Standards followed at 31.6%, highlighting the importance of meeting established guidelines and maintaining compliance with industry benchmarks. Documentation Capabilities, with a weight of 15.3%, ranked lower but remains vital for ensuring accurate records and regulatory accountability.

4.4.6. User Training and Support

Table 13. User training and support CSFs results.

ID	CSF	Weight	Rank
18	User-Friendliness	0.529	1
14	Training Resources	0.277	2
15	Support Services	0.194	3

provides the weight and rank of the User Training and Support CSFs. The resulting $CR$ is 0.2%, confirming the reliability of the results, and $CI$ of 73.4%, indicating a high degree of agreement on the importance of each criterion. User-Friendliness emerged as the top-ranked criterion with a weight of 52.9%. This demonstrates the critical role of intuitive and user-friendly software in facilitating the successful adoption and use of BIM systems in construction projects. Training Resources ranked second with a weight of 27.7%. This reflects the importance of ensuring that users have access to sufficient training resources to improve their skills and knowledge in the effective use of BIM tools. Finally, Support Services ranked third with a weight of 19.4%.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to identify and prioritize the CSFs for successful BIM implementation, addressing a significant gap in systematically evaluating their relative importance. The findings contribute both theoretically and practically, offering a structured methodology to assess the impact of various factors on BIM adoption while providing actionable insights for industry stakeholders.

5.1. Theoretical Considerations

The findings align with and extend prior studies by offering a more nuanced understanding of BIM adoption dynamics.

The Strategic Alignment dimension emphasizes aligning BIM initiatives with organizational objectives to foster innovation and sustainability. This finding aligns with prior research, which underscores integrating BIM into strategic frameworks as crucial for long-term value creation and competitive advantage [24,35]. BIM contributions to reducing costs, improving delivery timelines, and enabling technological differentiation reinforce its role in enhancing market positioning and resilience [2,56]. Additionally, BIM life cycle benefits, including better asset management and operational cost savings, are consistent with studies linking BIM to organizational adaptability and sustainability [58,59,67].

The Process Efficiency dimension highlights BIM’s ability to optimize workflows, shorten project timelines, and improve data accuracy. These findings align with extensive literature on BIM’s role in streamlining processes, enhancing decision making, and optimizing resource utilization [50,63]. BIM integration with lean principles further supports waste reduction and operational efficiency [44,61]. Advanced modeling capabilities, such as 4D simulations, are recognized as essential tools for anticipating delays and improving schedule management [6,62].

The Technology Integration dimension underscores the importance of interoperability, IT compatibility, and workflow alignment for BIM success. This is consistent with research emphasizing the need for seamless integration with existing systems to prevent data silos and promote collaborative environments [57,60]. Interoperability is widely acknowledged as a key enabler of cross-disciplinary collaboration and holistic project management, reducing errors and facilitating efficient data exchange [56,67].

The Change Management dimension focuses on leadership, stakeholder engagement, and organizational readiness as pivotal factors in BIM adoption. These findings corroborate studies identifying leadership support as essential for mitigating resistance and fostering innovation during digital transformations [24,49]. Addressing resistance to change through targeted training, clear communication, and proactive strategies aligns with best practices for smoother transitions in traditionally conservative industries [17,40].

The Regulatory Compliance dimension stresses the necessity of aligning BIM practices with legal and industry standards. This aligns with research emphasizing regulatory adaptability as vital for compliance and risk reduction in complex projects [49,50]. Industry standards and documentation requirements play a crucial role in fostering cross-jurisdictional collaboration and maintaining accountability [67,68].

The User Training and Support dimension highlights the importance of skill development and technical assistance in maximizing BIM adoption. These findings are consistent with the literature advocating for addressing skill gaps and ensuring continuous training to keep pace with evolving technological demands [50,65]. The provision of user-friendly software and comprehensive training programs has been widely recognized as essential for fostering adoption and minimizing resistance particularly in regions with limited BIM expertise [56,67].

5.2. Practical Considerations

Among the dimensions analyzed, Strategic Alignment emerged as the most critical (weight 25.9%). Alone, the two dimensions account for $\stackrel{\sim }{5}0\%$ of the expected success of BIM adoption. At the individual CSF level, Workflow Streamlining (weight 10.7%) and Contribution to Strategic Business Objectives (weight 10.5%) were identified as the most influential factors, which were followed by Competitive Advantage (weight 8.7%), Process Time Reduction (weight 8.1%), and IT Compatibility. This implies organizations must integrate BIM into their strategic plans with a focus on process efficiency and ensuring compatibility between BIM tools and other systems.

The findings offer actionable guidance for practitioners to assess organizational readiness for BIM and develop targeted roadmaps for implementing digital workflows. A recommended first step is scoring each CSF based on current organizational capabilities and applying AHP-derived weights to these scores. This process highlights strengths and weaknesses, identifying areas requiring improvement or additional resource allocation. Practitioners should also consider a phased implementation strategy to reduce risks and optimize resources, beginning with pilot projects to test and refine BIM workflows in controlled environments before expanding to larger initiatives. Using CSFs as performance metrics, feedback mechanisms could be set up for continuously monitoring the effectiveness of BIM implementation. These tools enable timely adjustments to workflows, training programs, or technology investments to address emerging challenges.

6. Conclusions

While numerous studies have explored the CSFs for BIM adoption, there remains a lack of consensus on their relative importance and hierarchical structure. Prior research often highlights the benefits of BIM in streamlining construction processes but offers limited insight into systematically prioritizing the criteria that drive successful implementation. This study addresses this gap by leveraging the AHP method to quantitatively assess and rank CSFs, providing a structured framework to guide BIM adoption and advance the digitization of manual processes.

6.1. Limitations

Despite its contributions, this study has limitations that suggest opportunities for future research.

First, the sample size of 31 experts, while diverse and internationally representative, may not fully reflect the breadth of perspectives in the global construction industry. Expanding future research to include larger and more varied samples would enhance the generalization of the findings.

Second, reliance on the AHP method assumes consistent and rational judgments, which may be subject to individual biases. Combining AHP with other decision-making approaches, such as Delphi [15,19] or fuzzy logic [44,69], could mitigate such biases and yield more robust results.

Third, the study focused on a predefined set of CSFs, potentially overlooking emerging trends, such as Industry 4.0/5.0 technologies or disruptive innovations in BIM. The regular re-evaluation of CSFs in response to technological advancements and evolving industry practices would ensure the framework remains adaptive and relevant.

Fourth, the study does not analyze variations in results based on expert demographics or organizational contexts. Factors such as professional background, years of experience, organization size, or industry sector may significantly influence the prioritization and impact of CSFs, which warrants further investigation.

6.2. Future Research Streams

Future research could explore the role of BIM CSFs in improving project planning, monitoring, and control. Leveraging BIM data integration capabilities, studies could examine how real-time data supports cost estimation, schedule feasibility, and early project planning. The integration of advanced tools such as Monte Carlo simulations or AI-driven forecasting could provide innovative solutions for addressing design uncertainties and enhancing decision making. These tools also offer opportunities for real-time monitoring, enabling improved schedule adherence, resource optimization, and proactive risk management. Research on BIM role in promoting collaboration and transparency among stakeholders could provide insights into its effects on decision-making, communication, and control mechanisms, further underscoring its transformative potential.

Another promising avenue involves investigating the interrelationships among CSFs. Using quantitative methods, such as structural equation modeling or regression analysis, future studies could provide a holistic understanding of how these factors interact and influence one another. Qualitative approaches, including case studies and expert interviews, could complement these findings by offering in-depth contextual insights. Variations in BIM implementation outcomes based on demographics or organizational characteristics also warrant further exploration. Analyzing factors such as professional background, industry sector, or organizational size could reveal important trends in CSF prioritization and its implications for success.