Challenges and barriers in BIM adoption and implementation in railways

Introduction: Building Information Modelling (BIM) has emerged as a multidisciplinary methodology that integrates information-rich data with virtual representations to support the management of built assets throughout their lifecycle. While BIM is increasingly adopted in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industries and demonstrates significant value in infrastructure projects; however, its application in the railway sector remains limited. The complexity of railway networks, combined with the growing demand for transit projects, presents unique challenges that hinder effective implementation.

Methods: This study investigates the barriers of BIM adoption within the railway industry through a structured questionnaire distributed to professionals and a subsequent detailed analysis of responses.

Results: This study identifies critical gaps in current BIM practices and highlights several severe obstacles that require urgent attention. Feedback reveals key challenges across four main areas: (1) Technology, (2) Market, (3) Socio-cultural factors, and (4) Policy.

Discussion: By outlining these barriers and suggesting potential solutions, the study provides valuable insights for stakeholders and identifies future research directions to advance BIM integration in railway projects.

1 Introduction

Railway infrastructure systems are inherently complex, spanning from the initiation of construction projects through to operational service. They require efficient information management and collaboration among all stakeholders, as the sector must address aspects of reliability, availability, maintainability, and safety (RAMS). To achieve optimal efficiency, railway projects have increasingly adopted technologies such as Building Information Modelling (BIM). This section outlines the background of BIM implementation in railway infrastructure, identifies the challenges currently faced by the industry, and presents the aims of this study. The study contributes by revealing key barriers through a semi-structured survey and offering suggestions to address existing gaps.

1.1 Maturity of BIM implementation in railway infrastructure

BIM is not merely a software application but rather a culture of collaboration, organisation, and teamwork (Bensalah et al., 2019). BIM offers diverse applications, including visualisation, 3D rendering, cost estimation, and construction sequencing. Currently, the maturity of Building Information Modelling (BIM) is typically categorized from level 1 to level 3. BIM level 1 is characterised by the predominance of 2D models with limited use of 3D. BIM level 2 represents collaborative 3D modelling, where stakeholders exchange information through recognised standards, resulting in a shared dataset that enhances coordination between stakeholders. BIM level 3, commonly associated with integrated iBIM and digital twins, signifies a fully collaborative environment in which data are integrated, connected, and interoperable (Dowd MRICS and Marsh MRICS, 2020). The levels of BIM maturity, ranging from level 1 to level 3, are illustrated in Figure 1. The concept of BIM digital maturity has been reinterpreted and updated from the original Bew–Richards maturity model, which laid the foundation for understanding BIM adoption levels. This framework has since evolved into a formalised standard, most notably through the ISO 19650 series (ISO, 2018), which remains the primary international reference for BIM implementation. However, the rapid pace of technological advancement and the changing industry environment have revealed certain limitations within the current standards. These gaps raise concerns regarding their ability to address emerging practices and challenges fully. The outcomes of this observation, along with a critical discussion of these limitations, will be presented in the following sections of this study.

Figure 1

Figure 1. The concept of BIM maturity levels, adapted from the Bew–Richards model (Bew and Richards, 2008) and the distribution of survey respondents across different levels.

From the survey, respondents were asked about the current BIM maturity or technological level at which they were operating. The results show that 55% of respondents reported using BIM at Level 1, 26% at Level 2, and 19% at Level 3, highlighting that the majority are still at the early stage of BIM adoption in the railway sector as shown in Figure 1.

1.2 Challenges of BIM adaption in railway practice

In recent years, BIM has become a global trend in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector, owing to its capabilities in collaboration, visualisation, clash detection, and multi-dimensional project management. Beyond these technical functions, BIM also contributes to sustainability by enabling the monitoring and management of carbon emissions throughout the entire lifecycle of built assets (Akponeware et al., 2022). The growing number of research studies and practical case applications demonstrates the robustness of BIM as an integrative framework for addressing the complex and dynamic nature of construction projects (Tan et al., 2025). For example, Wang and Zhang (2021) proposed strategies to enhance information handover management for BIM-based railway projects in China, notably to support operation and maintenance (O&M) activities. Similarly, Xu et al. (2024) adapted BIM tools to strengthen risk management in railway stations by optimising evacuation models for emergency scenarios. These studies indicate that BIM has significant potential to enhance railway systems across their lifecycle.

However, as Mounir (Bensalah et al., 2019) observed, BIM implementation in the railway sector remains limited, with applications mainly concentrated in the design and planning phases of construction. Despite substantial theoretical innovations, practical adoption faces persistent resistance and industry-level difficulties (Tan et al., 2025; Demirkesen and Tezel, 2021). Dowd MRICS and Marsh MRICS (2020) further emphasised that BIM resilience must be understood through multiple dimensions, ranging from technical advancements to stakeholder behaviours within the value chain. Overall, the literature highlights four critical barriers to BIM adoption in railway projects: (1) limitations in technological tools; (2) fragmentation in policy-making (Demirkesen and Tezel, 2021; Quill et al., 2023); (3) low market-level adoption of BIM practices (Demirkesen and Tezel, 2021; Olowa et al., 2023; Yan and Damian, 2008) and (4) insufficient awareness and education within the industry (Olowa et al., 2023; Yan and Damian, 2008; Agwa and Celik, 2025; Liu et al., 2015; Waqar et al., 2023). This paper aims to identify and analyse these barriers in depth, providing insights that support the consistent and sustainable development of BIM adoption in the railway industry.

1.3 Aims of this study

Based on the literature review, which outlined both current BIM practices in the railway sector and challenges to real-world adoption, this study investigates factors hindering effective BIM implementation. A structured questionnaire was designed and administered to professionals with direct railway experience and a foundational knowledge of BIM, ensuring findings reflect workplace realities. Section 2 details the questionnaire design, Section 3 analyses the responses from the respondents, and Sections 4 and 5 discuss the association between identified challenges and respondents’ professional backgrounds, concluding with the study’s key insights.

2 Methodology and background

Based on a review of existing literature, the development and adoption of BIM within the railway industry are influenced by a multitude of factors. These include technological advancements, governmental regulations and policies, international agreements, and overarching economic strategies that shape the entire railway supply chain. The methodology employed in this study was informed by these multidimensional criteria and used to design a comprehensive questionnaire. To gather relevant data, a structured survey was conducted during the BIM for Rail Bootcamp 2025, held on June 10th and 11th, 2025, in Amersfoort, the Netherlands (Hask oning, 2025). This event was organised by Haskoning, a prominent Dutch engineering, consultancy, and technology firm, to foster collaboration and ideation around the implementation of BIM within the railway sector. The survey targeted a wide range of key stakeholders in the European railway industry, including Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), rail directors, senior consultants, and other professionals with varying levels of experience and expertise. By engaging with participants from diverse professional backgrounds and countries, the survey enabled the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. The anonymity of responses further encouraged candid insights, contributing to a nuanced understanding of the current state of BIM application in the railway sector. This study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses to critically examine the significance and extent of BIM implementation across the industry. The feedback obtained from the survey was subjected to rigorous analysis to identify prevailing challenges and barriers to BIM adoption. These challenges were explored in the context of organisational structures, policy frameworks, technical capabilities, and inter-organisational collaboration. Through this multifaceted lens, the research provides a comprehensive assessment of the current landscape of BIM integration in the railway industry. It offers insight into the critical factors influencing its broader adoption.

A total of 31 participants from various European countries completed the questionnaire, representing approximately half of attendees at the associated event. The participants represented a variety of roles within the industry, including project managers, directors, engineers, consultants, etc. Their work experience was categorised into five levels: beginner (0–3 years), early career (3–5 years), mid-level (5–10 years), experienced (10–20 years), and senior (20+ years). This diverse range of professional backgrounds highlights both the complexity of the railway industry and the authenticity of the feedback on BIM implementation in the rail sector. Their feedback forms the basis for the analysis presented in the following sections. The survey was conducted with strict adherence to ethical research protocols. Anonymity was fully ensured, and no personally identifiable information was collected at any stage. All respondents provided informed written consent before participation. Although only 31 participants were involved, which is a relatively small sample size for a survey, the study was intentionally designed to target professionals holding key roles in the rail industry. Unlike large-scale surveys focused on quantity, this survey followed a semi-interview format. The participants attended a dedicated session introducing the survey and the study objectives, which is considered to provide a more accurate reflection of BIM application conditions in real-world practice.

2.1 Role of respondents and stakeholder identification

From the 31 respondents to the survey, their roles in the railway system can be categorised into 12 roles. In identifying their responsibility or involvement as stakeholders, they associated themselves with 8 stakeholder groups from the predefined options. As shown in Figure 2a, the participants represented 12 distinct roles within the rail sector, including project managers, chief executive officers (CEO), directors, Asset Integrity Management (AIM) managers, technical managers, engineers, data management officers, Research and Development (R&D) officers/managers, BIM coordinators, consultants, rail operators, etc. This distribution highlights the complexity and diversity of the rail industry. Subsequently, the transfer of information, products and/or services between stakeholder groups has been mapped in Figure 2b, which also illustrates the proportion of each role within each stakeholder group. This figure provides a detailed illustration of the relationships between different stakeholder groups within the rail sector. The colours in each pie chart represent the proportion of participants holding specific roles within a given stakeholder group. While some participants may share the same role title, their work activities vary according to the stakeholder group to which they belong. As a result, the extent of BIM usage and the level of awareness regarding BIM implementation differ across groups. Furthermore, the connecting lines between the stakeholder group pie charts indicate the interdependencies and working relationships among stakeholders, such as shared activities, performance indicators (KPIs), and collaborative tasks. This visualisation highlights not only the diversity of roles but also the complex network of interactions that influence BIM implementation in the rail industry.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) Distribution of respondents by role. (b) Stakeholder identification and communication mapping, where the colour coding corresponds to the roles shown in (a).

2.2 BIM implementation in workplace

The background of the survey respondents on the challenges and barriers to BIM adoption and implementation in the railway sector included five project managers, four directors, four CEOs, three engineers, two BIM coordinators, two data management specialists, 2 R&D staff, two rail operators, and one each of consultant, technical manager, and AIM manager. In addition, four respondents reported other roles. This distribution demonstrates that the survey covered a wide range of professional positions across the railway sector, thereby providing diverse perspectives on the challenges and barriers to BIM adoption. Among all respondents, 71% reported that they had the options, capabilities, and potential to implement BIM in practice within their workplace or country, while the remaining 29% indicated that they did not. In addition, 68% of respondents reported being aware of BIM maturity, while 32% indicated that they were not. This suggests that more than half of the respondents demonstrated an awareness of BIM maturity.

In addition to respondents’ professional roles, their capability to implement BIM in practice, and their awareness of BIM maturity, work experience also represents an important factor influencing their perspectives on the challenges and barriers to BIM adoption and implementation in the railway sector. The results indicate that the largest group of respondents (29%) had more than 20 years of experience in the railway sector, while over 45% reported between 3 and 20 years of experience, and 26% had less than 3 years. This demonstrates that the survey gathered insights from participants with substantial professional experience in the railway industry. The distribution of respondents’ work experience is illustrated in Figure 3. The primary workplace of the survey respondents is in the United States and across several European countries, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Estonia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and France. The largest proportion of respondents were based in the Netherlands, followed by Switzerland, while the remaining countries accounted for relatively similar shares, with no substantial differences despite the slightly higher representation from the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Figure 3

Figure 3. The respondents’ workplace and years of work experience.

As part of their professional roles, respondents were also asked to indicate the phase of the railway life cycle in which they were most involved, influenced, or responsible for decision-making. The largest share (21%) reported working primarily in the Construction Phase, followed by 16% in the Design and/or Re-design Phase (including planning). Smaller proportions were engaged in the Use or In-service/Maintenance Phase (8%), the Procurement and Manufacturing Phase (3%), and the Production Phase (2%). Notably, more than 13% of respondents indicated that their responsibilities extended across all phases of the life cycle. This distribution demonstrates that respondents represented various stages of the railway life cycle, providing a comprehensive perspective (Figure 4). Also, the survey results show that 58% of respondents worked primarily in brownfield projects (existing rail sector), 10% were involved exclusively in greenfield projects (new rail projects), and 32% reported working in both brownfield and greenfield contexts. This distribution highlights the diversity of the respondents’ professional involvement across different types of rail projects.

Figure 4

Figure 4. The phase of the participants involved in their workplace and proportion of engagement.

3 Results

This section presents the survey results, offering different perspectives on the current challenges in BIM implementation within the railway industry. The details of the questionnaire design are provided in Supplementary Appendix SA. The survey data was validated using IBM SPSS Statistics through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), confirming that the questionnaire demonstrated acceptable reliability. The analysis revealed a high degree of internal consistency among the variables, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.972 (Supplementary Appendix SB1). Furthermore, the study ensured sampling adequacy using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure for the set of four critical barrier questions (Supplementary Appendix SC1). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was also conducted to examine the communalities and identify items with high variance (Supplementary Appendix SC2). While the appendices present the detailed data analysis process, this section focuses on discussing the critical results derived from the respondents.

3.1 Technological barriers

Technological challenges in the modern era remain widespread, particularly regarding successful implementation of BIM. According to the study by James Olaonipekun Toyin (Musonda and Mwanaumo, 2022), several technological barriers hinder BIM implementation. For example, accessibility of BIM tools, Failure in technology support, Inadequate of BIM data, lack of BIM experts, among others. Survey responses indicated that respondents, including executives, engineers, and senior managers, consistently identified technological barriers as a significant barrier to the successful implementation of BIM in railway infrastructure. The subsequent section presents and analyses the critical results obtained from the survey response.

Figure 5 presents the results of questions related to technical barriers. Railway infrastructure projects require not only practical experience but also a solid foundation of knowledge to ensure efficiency. However, the effective adoption of BIM in this sector demands advanced and highly specialised expertise that goes beyond basic familiarity. This section examines the extent to which respondents recognise the lack of experience and knowledge as critical obstacles to the successful implementation of BIM in railway infrastructure. Specifically, questions TB1, TB5, TB7, TB13, TB16, TB19, and TB20 highlight technological barriers to BIM adoption, with a particular focus on expertise and knowledge. The key findings are summarised below:

• TB1 – Lack of skills and experience: Approximately 19.4% of respondents considered insufficient skills and experience for BIM, data management, digital twin as a “Critical” challenge, while 38.7% rated it as “High” and 25.8% as a “Moderate”.

• TB5 – Lack of related materials and tools: By contrast, a relatively minor proportion of respondents viewed lack of learning materials or related tools as a significant barrier. Specifically, 35.5% rated it as “Moderate,” 32.3% as “Low,” and 9.7% as “Very Low.” This suggests that in regions such as Europe and North America, where internet access and educational resources are readily available, the lack of learning materials and related tools is not perceived as a critical aspect.

• TB7 – Insufficient design of railway assets: Around 10% of respondents highlighted the insufficient design of railway assets, particularly the lack of modularity that enables renewal without affecting adjacent components as a “Critical” barrier, while 32% considered it a “High” challenge. The lack of design knowledge in railway components, which hinders renewal without damaging other parts, prevents BIM from being updated effectively.

• TB13 – Lack of knowledge on the usage and impact of BIM on RAMS: An additional 16.1% of respondents considered the lack of knowledge regarding the usage and impact of BIM on safety, reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAMS) as a “Critical” concern, while both “High” and “Moderate” ratings accounted for 19.4% each, a further 29% regarded this issue as “Low”. This indicates that the lack of knowledge on the usage and impact of BIM on RAMS may not be perceived as the most critical concern, yet it should not be overlooked.

• TB16 – Lack of technical input(s) from stakeholder: About 19.4% of respondents regarded the lack of technical input(s) from value chain stakeholders or from colleagues to improve BIM in practice as a “Critical” issue, 22.6% rated it as “High” and 32.3% as “Low” concern. Beyond the lack of knowledge in other aspects, the insufficient of technical input(s) from stakeholders also remains a critical issue for the successful implementation of BIM.

• TB19 – Lack of use or applications of BIM for railway in aspects of circularity: An additional 16.1% of respondents considered the lack of use or applications of BIM for railway lifecycle assessment, circularity, sustainability, energy, resilience, and/or biodiversity aspects as a “Critical” concern, while both “High” and “Moderate” ratings accounted for 19.4% each, a further 25.8% regarded this issue as “Low”. This indicates that although most respondents perceived the lack of BIM applications for circularity-related aspects as of relatively low importance, a considerable proportion still recognised its significance.

• TB20 – Lack of on-site applications: About 19.4% of respondents regarded the lack of on-site applications as a “Critical” issue, while 16.1% rated it as “Moderate” and 25.8% as “Low” concern. While gaps remain, findings suggest that BIM could be further developed for application in the railway industry, particularly through increased on-site implementation.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Question sets about technological barriers.

Overall, although BIM is a modern and efficient technology, the survey results indicate that the lack of skills and experience, along with the insufficient design of railway assets that prevents renewal without damaging other parts, represent significant obstacles. Addressing these barriers requires comprehensive knowledge development initiatives for stakeholders, such as providing training and education on BIM, data management, digital twins, and the design of railway infrastructure components. Furthermore, participants should be given opportunities to gain practical experience in applying these technologies and knowledge. In addition, knowledge exchange across organisations at the international level should also be encouraged.

The software used for BIM development plays a pivotal role in enhancing efficiency and accelerating successful implementation. It also has the potential to support net-zero targets by reducing environmental impact through life cycle assessment (LCA). However, a study revealed that although 82% of participants adopt sustainability strategies, only 29% use BIM-based LCA tools in AEC sector (Parece et al., 2025). This gap is primarily attributed to interoperability limitations, such as insufficient real-time information updates and a lack of interactive processes. In our study, questions Q2, Q6, Q8, and Q14 highlighted barriers to BIM adoption related to software and digital tools. The key findings are as follows:

• TB2 – Lack of software or innovations for BIM: The barrier of lack of software or innovations for BIM is regarded as being of moderate-to-high importance. Survey results show that 38.7% of respondents rated this issue as “Moderate” and 19.4% as “High”. While it was not considered a “Critical” barrier (only 9.7% rated it at this level), its significance remains high enough that it cannot be overlooked.

• TB6 – Lack of research, software development, and materials database: The least critical barrier identified was lack of research, software development, and materials database, about 32.2% rated this as a “Low” issue, 3.2% as “Critical”, 29.0% as “High” and 16.1% as “Moderate”.

• TB8 – Limited research on interactive BIM for railway risk, RAMS, and circularity: The barrier of Limited research on interactive BIM for railway risk, RAMS, and circularity can be summarised as being of moderate-to-low importance. Survey responses show that 35.5% rated this issue as “Moderate” and 25.8% as “Low,” indicating that respondents generally perceive research on interactive BIM technologies, including railway risk management, RAMS, circularity, adaptability, and disassembly in incidental scenarios, as reasonably sufficient to support the successful implementation of BIM. However, a smaller proportion still considered it lacking, with 6.5% rating it as “Critical” and 12.9% as “High.”

• TB14 – Lack of BIM tools and methods for managing railway construction waste: The insufficient of BIM tools and methods for managing railway construction waste can be summarised as having moderate-to-low importance. Survey responses show that 35.5% rated this issue as “Moderate” and 19.4% as “Low,” suggesting that respondents generally view existing BIM tools and methods for managing railway construction waste as reasonably sufficient to support the successful implementation of BIM. Nevertheless, some still considered it insufficient, with 12.9% rating it as “Critical” and 9.7% as “High.”

Overall, the survey results suggest that technological barriers related to software for the successful implementation of BIM are generally perceived at a moderate level rather than critical. This indicates that immediate action for software improvement may not be required; however, it is still an area that cannot be overlooked. Specifically, the findings highlight that the lack of software, tools, innovation, methods, algorithms, and/or technologies for BIM, data management, and/or digital twins is an issue that should be addressed as a priority. Strengthening innovation in BIM and digital twins through initiatives led by government bodies, private organisations, and academic institutions is therefore recommended.

In addition to barriers related to knowledge and software, challenges associated with methods and strategies are equally critical. The appropriate methods and techniques are essential for effective long-term planning. However, the absence of well-developed approaches, such as limited awareness, a lack of flexible design strategies, and insufficient relevant standards, can significantly hinder the efficiency and overall success of BIM adoption in the railway sector. In this study, questions Q3, Q4, Q9, Q10, and Q18 reveal these key challenges, and the results are presented below:

• TB3 – Insufficient awareness: The barrier of Insufficient awareness of BIM methodology and/or data availability across the railway life cycle is regarded as the most significant in terms of methods and strategies. Survey results show that 25.8% of respondents rated this issue as “Critical” and a further 29.0% as “High”.

• TB4 – Lack of flexible rail design strategies: Survey respondents viewed its importance as evenly distributed across levels. The largest share, 23.0%, rated it as “Low,” while both “Moderate” and “High” received 19.0% each, and 16.0% considered it “Critical.” Although the majority perceived this issue as being of lower importance, the findings indicate that greater flexibility in design strategies and/or techniques for multifunctional and continued use would enhance the effective implementation of BIM.

• TB9 – Lack of guidance and tools associated with BIM: More than half of respondents rated the lack of guidance and tools associated with BIM and/or unified data governance and regulations for the implementation or audit of BIM over its life cycle as a “High” or “Moderate” issue. Many stakeholders indicated that the absence of such guidance and tools hinders the smooth implementation or audit of BIM over its life cycle, making its adoption slower and more difficult.

• TB10 – Lack of relevant standard for BIM in railway industry: The barrier of Lack of relevant standards for BIM technologies in the railway industry was mostly rated at the “Moderate” level, with 32.0% of respondents selecting this option. A further 13.0% rated it as “Critical” and 26.0% as “High”. These results indicate that the absence of standards for BIM technologies in the railway industry is considered relatively important, though it is not viewed as the most urgent barrier to BIM adoption.

• TB18 – Lack of multi-scale BIM integration: Lack of multi-scale BIM integration with a complex built-environment setting was perceived as relatively high to critical. Survey results show that 16.0% of respondents rated this issue as “Critical,” while the largest share, 29.0%, rated it as “High.” This indicates that stakeholders regard the absence of multi-scale integration within complex systems as a significant barrier to BIM adoption.

Overall, the survey results suggest that insufficient awareness and lack of multi-scale BIM integration are the most critical barriers to the successful implementation of BIM. The next most significant obstacles are the lack of guidance and tools associated with BIM and the absence of relevant standards for BIM in the railway industry. The least critical barrier identified was the lack of flexible rail design strategies. These findings indicate that improving awareness of BIM and enhancing multi-scale integration could accelerate its successful implementation, while also helping to alleviate other existing barriers.

The final group of technological barriers relates to BIM components and data collection, which provide the foundation for effective BIM development. Gao et al. (2025) highlight the shortcomings of the BIM software, including poor collaboration tools and insufficient data handling. Responses to questions Q11, Q12, Q15, and Q17 conducted a deeper investigation into these challenges in this study.

• TB11 – Lack of BIM integration with assessment tools: The barrier of Lack of BIM integration with assessment tools received relatively balanced ratings across all levels of importance, with 19.4% of respondents rating it as “Critical,” 22.6% as “High,” 19.4% as “Moderate,” and 16.1% as “Low.” This distribution indicates that perceptions of its significance are varied, likely reflecting the diverse roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the railway sector, which in turn results in differing levels of importance placed on assessment tools.

• TB12 – Lack of data collection and/or measurement system: In line with the previous barrier, the Lack of data collection, information and/or measurement systems to understand and trace material flows, GIS, spatial planning, and logistics within BIM was also rated with relatively balanced proportions across all levels of importance.

• TB15 – BIM’s parts cannot be dissembled for repair or replacement of sub-components: The barrier of BIM’s parts cannot be disassembled for repair or replacement of sub-components was regarded as being of moderate-to-high importance, with 25.8% of respondents rating it as “Moderate” and 16.1% as “High”. This indicates that difficulties in disassembling BIM parts to repair or replace sub-components is considered a relatively important barrier.

• TB17 – Lack of technical support to transfer the BIM applications: The most significant barrier identified was technical support to transfer BIM applications, with approximately 26.0% and 23.0% of respondents rating it as a “Critical” and “High” challenge, respectively. Limited technical support for transferring BIM applications across different departments, life cycle stages, or towards digital twins hinders the successful implementation of BIM within the railway industry.

The survey results indicate that, in terms of BIM components and data collection, the most critical barrier is the lack of technical support to transfer BIM applications. The second most significant challenge is that BIM parts cannot be disassembled for repair or replacement of sub-components. Other barriers whose perceived importance varied across respondent groups include the lack of BIM integration with assessment tools and the lack of data collection and/or measurement systems.

3.2 Market/economic barriers

Market and economic barriers refer to the financial and commercial challenges that hinder the adoption of advanced technologies in the railway sector. These barriers are not limited to market-related issues alone, but also encompass the costs associated with software development for BIM, the need for collaboration among stakeholders and key authorities in sharing essential data and models, as well as the knowledge required in areas such as business practices, BIM integration, and stakeholder skills and experience. The following sections will illustrate how barriers related to software, collaboration, and knowledge influence the adoption of BIM in the railway sector, based on the survey results (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Question sets about market/economic barriers.

For the successful implementation of BIM in the railway sector, investment in software is a critical requirement. Specialised applications, licensing fees, and the cost of training personnel to operate these tools represent a significant financial burden. Some stakeholders perceive these expenses as disproportionately high compared with the anticipated benefits. In this study, questions MB1 and MB4 highlighted market barriers related to digital tools, and the results are presented below:

• MB1 – Extra costs of BIM software: From the survey, regarding extra costs of BIM software, BIM development, and BIM upkeep over the life cycle as a barrier to the successful implementation of BIM in the railway sector, the responses were fairly evenly distributed: “Critical” 16%, “High”16%, “Moderate” 16%, “Low” 23%, and “Very Low” 13%.

• MB4 – Lack of commercial software, technologies, and IT infrastructure for BIM adoption: The survey results show that the majority of respondents (39%) regarded the lack of commercial software, technologies, and IT infrastructure for promoting data management, digital engineering projects, and BIM usage as a low-level barrier to BIM adoption in the railway sector. A further 29% considered it a moderate barrier, while none of the respondents rated it as critical.

Overall, it can be observed that software-related barriers to successful BIM adoption in the railway sector were not generally perceived as critical. Although a proportion of respondents regarded the extra costs of BIM software as a critical issue, the majority did not. Nevertheless, allocating greater budgetary support for BIM software could potentially facilitate its adoption in the railway sector and accelerate successful implementation.

Another significant barrier concerns collaboration among stakeholders and related parties. Within the context of market and economic barriers, competition between organisations may prevent the free exchange of information, as certain aspects are considered confidential. To better understand how respondents perceive collaboration as a critical obstacle to successful BIM adoption, this section presents the survey results on issues such as inadequate collaboration, unwillingness to share data, market disconnection, and lack of financial support. In this study, MB2, MB5, MB7 and MB8 highlighted the key challenges related to collaboration among stakeholders.

• MB2 – Inadequate collaboration in the value chain for BIM adoption: The most significant collaboration-related barrier under the market/economic category was identified as inadequate collaboration between stakeholders and all parties involved in the value chain during the transition to digitalisation and BIM adoption. A total of 36% of respondents rated this issue as Critical, followed by 19% each rating it as “High” and “Moderate”.

• MB5 – Unwillingness to share data, models, and expertise on BIM platforms: The next most significant barrier was the unwillingness of relevant companies or stakeholders to participate and share data, information, sub-models, and/or expert decision-making processes on BIM and digital platforms. This was rated as “Critical” by 26% of respondents, while a further 13% and 19% considered it “High” and “Moderate”, respectively.

• MB7 – Market disconnection from differing views on BIM’s value: The survey results regarding market disconnection due to inconsistent and differing opinions of BIM’s value among industry partners or value-chain stakeholders affecting BIM adoption in the railway sector show that most respondents (32%) rated this barrier as “Moderate”. This was followed by “High” (20%), “Low” (19%), and “Critical” (10%). Overall, this was considered the least significant collaboration-related barrier within the market/economic category.

• MB8 – Lack of financial support for BIM integration from key authorities/owners: The lack of sufficient financial support from government, railway asset owners or managers, or railway authorities to integrate BIM in practice was identified as another barrier of comparable importance to the unwillingness to share data, models, and expertise on BIM platforms. This barrier was rated as “Critical” by 26% of respondents and “High” by 23%, indicating that its perceived significance lies predominantly between the Critical and High levels.

The survey results on collaboration-related aspects of market and economic barriers show that respondents considered inadequate collaboration across the value chain to be the most significant obstacle to BIM adoption. This was followed by an unwillingness to share data, models, and expertise on BIM platforms, as well as insufficient financial support for BIM integration from key authorities and owners. The least significant barrier was market fragmentation caused by differing views on the value of BIM. Overall, the findings suggest that although respondents perceived market connectivity to be relatively well established, the lack of willingness to collaborate, whether through the value chain, data and model sharing, or financial support from relevant organisations, remains a critical challenge.

Knowledge forms the foundation of all processes and is fundamental to advancing BIM adoption in the railway sector. The survey examined how respondents evaluated knowledge-related barriers, including the exclusion of BIM from public procurement during the digital transition, limited understanding of BIM integration, and insufficient skills and experience among stakeholders across the value chain. This study highlights the key findings in MB3, MB6 and MB9:

• MB3 – Public procurement/business models exclude BIM in digital transition: From the survey results, respondents expressed differing views on the barrier of public procurement and business models currently excluding BIM and activities for the transition to digitalisation. The responses were evenly distributed, with “Critical” 16%, “High” 16%, “Moderate” 23%, “Low” 13%, and “Very Low” 16%.

• MB6 – Lack of knowledge on BIM integration with LCA, IoT, AI, co-simulation: This barrier, lack of knowledge into the availability of interactive BIM integration with lifecycle assessment, IoT sensors, artificial intelligence, and/or co-simulations, received the lowest proportion of “Critical” responses (10%). However, its importance was still recognised, with 26% rating it as “High”. In addition, 22% of respondents considered it “Moderate”, while 16% and 10% rated it “Low” and “Very Low”, respectively.

• MB9 – Limited stakeholder skills/experience in BIM integration across value chain: The most significant knowledge-related barrier under the market/economic category was the limited level of experience, capability, and/or skill among stakeholders in integrating BIM throughout the project value chain. This was rated as “Critical” by 26% of respondents, followed by “High” (26%) and “Moderate” (19%).

Overall, for the knowledge-related barriers under the market/economic category, the survey results indicate that the most significant obstacle was limited stakeholder skills and experience in BIM integration across the value chain. This was followed by public procurement and business models excluding BIM in the digital transition, while the least significant barrier was lack of knowledge on BIM integration with LCA, IoT, AI, and co-simulation. This suggests that respondents considered practical skills and capabilities to be a greater challenge than gaps in technical knowledge or procurement frameworks.

3.3 Cultural-societal barriers

Cultural and societal challenges are widely recognised as among the most critical obstacles to the successful implementation of BIM in the railway industry. Respondents from various European countries generally concur that technological advancements have played a significant role in promoting BIM adoption in this sector, particularly by enhancing collaboration and improving communication efficiency among key stakeholders, including contractors, engineers, and project managers. However, despite these advancements and their potential to facilitate comprehensive BIM integration in the railway industry, the reality remains more complex. The disparity in technological development levels across different countries continues to create a substantial gap in the pace and extent of BIM adoption. Furthermore, the cultural and societal dimensions influencing BIM implementation in the railway industry encompass several interrelated factors. These include variations in communication and collaboration capabilities, differing levels of awareness and engagement among governmental authorities and the general public, and the diversity of national policies, regulations, and guidelines governing BIM practices. To explore these issues, the present survey incorporated ten targeted questions aimed at professionals within the railway sector. These questions sought to identify and evaluate barriers operating at the cultural and societal levels. The critical findings derived from the survey responses are presented in Figure 7 and discussed below.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Question sets about cultural-societal barriers.

The complexities of railway systems significantly increase the challenges of management; however, the development of BIM has introduced powerful capabilities, particularly in enhancing collaboration and communication among stakeholders. Despite this potential, limited awareness and inconsistent cross-sector information exchange remain critical concerns. CB1, CB3, CB5, CB7 and CB8 especially investigate the cultural-societal barriers related to collaboration and communication. The key findings are presented below:

• CB1 – Inadequate stakeholder participation: Approximately 19.4% of respondents considered insufficient stakeholder involvement in BIM development and usage as a “Critical” challenge, while 29.0% rated it as “High” and 16.1% as a “Moderate” issue. Insufficient participation undermines collaboration efficiency, widens knowledge gaps, and results in mismatched project expectations.

• CB3 – Lack of leadership: The most pressing barrier identified was inadequate leadership from government bodies, rail asset managers, regulators, business leaders, and professional associations. About 29% rated this as a “Critical” issue, 25.8% as “High”, and 12.9% as “Moderate.” Weak leadership reduces the promotion and implementation of BIM, thereby impeding its development within the railway sector.

• CB5 – Limited cross-sector awareness and collaboration: Around 16% of respondents highlighted the absence of awareness and cooperative engagement between organisations from different industries as a “Critical” barrier, while 25.8% considered it a “High” challenge. This lack of inter-organisational understanding fosters information asymmetry, inefficiencies, and potential market failures.

• CB7 – Deficient cross-sector information exchange: A further 22.6% of respondents viewed poor information exchange across sectors as a “Critical” concern. This limitation contributes to inefficient resource allocation, slower problem resolution, and limited effectiveness of BIM applications.

• CB8 – Insufficient stakeholder networks: About 16.1% of respondents regarded the lack of established networks to support participatory decision-making as a “Critical” issue, with over 30% identifying it as a “Moderate” concern. While gaps remain, findings suggest that BIM has already contributed to improved stakeholder networking across the value chain.

Overall, the survey highlights that while BIM has strong potential to improve communication and collaboration in railway projects, its adoption is hindered by fragmented participation, weak leadership, inadequate cross-sector awareness, and poor information exchange. Addressing these barriers requires strategic interventions, including stronger institutional leadership, targeted training and awareness programs, enhanced cross-industry cooperation, and the creation of participatory stakeholder networks. By overcoming these challenges, the railway sector can unlock the full value of BIM, leading to improved efficiency, reduced risks, and better alignment of stakeholder expectations across complex projects.

Societal expectations represent another significant dimension influencing the adoption of BIM in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO) sectors. These expectations encompass planning and regulatory requirements, customer preferences, stakeholder knowledge of BIM, and the practical experience of end-users. Zhang et al. (2019) emphasised that BIM adoption in sustainable construction management operates across multiple levels, governmental, enterprise, and personal, each exerting distinct impacts on outcomes. CB2, CB4, CB6, CB9 and CB10 further identified barriers related to cultural and societal expectations.

• CB2 – Planning and regulatory pressures: Approximately 22.6% of respondents identified the additional burden of fulfilling planning requirements (e.g., urban and city planning) within BIM models as a “Critical” or “High” challenge. A larger share, 32.3%, rated it as a “Moderate” concern. While these pressures are significant, BIM applications offer risk detection and predictive capabilities that have, in practice, helped alleviate some of the associated strain.

• CB4 – Customer preferences for traditional approaches: Around 19.4% of respondents regarded customer or influencer preferences for original CAD and blueprint-based methods as either “Critical” or “High” challenges. This resistance stems largely from limited awareness of BIM’s advantages, as its maturity has only evolved over the past 2 decades (HM Government, 2012; Chen et al., 2023; (Pérez-García et al., 2024). Moreover, adoption rates vary significantly across countries, further contributing to uneven expectations and practices.

• CB6 – Complexity of the railway lifecycle: More than half of respondents identified the need for a deeper understanding of BIM throughout every stage of the railway lifecycle as a “Critical” or “High” challenge. Many stakeholders perceive BIM processes as overly complex, resulting in longer project timelines and higher costs. This suggests that societal expectations around efficiency and transparency directly intersect with user knowledge and learning curves in BIM adoption.

• CB9 – Societal acceptance of innovation: By contrast, a relatively minor proportion of respondents viewed varying levels of societal acceptance of digital transformation as a significant barrier. Specifically, 19.7% rated it as “Moderate”, 29.0% as “Low”, and 6.5% as “Very Low.” This suggests that in European contexts, where the survey respondents are primarily located, BIM adoption is progressing at relatively comparable rates, minimising perception gaps in innovation acceptance.

• CB10 – End-user experience: The most significant barrier identified was the lack of sufficient BIM experience among end-users. Approximately 29% of respondents rated this as a “Critical” challenge, with a further 19.4% rating it as “High”. The limited end-user expertise continues to represent a substantial constraint on BIM’s effective implementation within the railway industry.

The survey underscores that societal expectations significantly shape the trajectory of BIM adoption in railway practice. Pressures from planning and regulatory compliance, resistance from stakeholders accustomed to traditional practices, and the complexity of managing the entire railway lifecycle contribute to delays and increased costs. Above all, the lack of sufficient end-user experience emerges as the most critical barrier, reinforcing the importance of capacity building. To address these challenges, railway organisations should give priority to enhancing training programmes aimed at strengthening end-user competencies. This may involve the development of structured guidance to facilitate the application of BIM throughout the asset lifecycle, the implementation of awareness initiatives to encourage a transition from traditional practices, and the mobilisation of government and enterprise-level leadership to ensure that societal expectations are aligned with the capabilities of BIM.

3.4 Regulatory and political barriers

During the BIM for Rail Bootcamp 2025, many professionals expressed significant concern regarding the absence of robust international regulatory frameworks and coherent policies to promote BIM adoption in railway practice effectively. Participants emphasised that the primary international standard of BIM implementation currently in use in current railway industry is ISO 19650, which evolved from the British Standard BS 1192 and PAS 1192-2. ISO 19650 provides a standardised approach for generating and classifying data, ensuring data security, and facilitating data exchange (ISO, 2018). It outlines the application of BIM across the entire life cycle of a project, encompassing conceptual design, asset delivery, operational asset management, information exchange, data security, and risk management for both buildings and civil engineering works. While ISO 19650 represents a valuable framework for information management within the construction sector, it is widely regarded as insufficient for addressing the unique complexities of railway infrastructure. Abanda et al. (2025) highlights a critical limitation of ISO 19650, namely, its lack of essential detail required to adequately capture the multifaceted interdependencies and operational intricacies inherent in real-world, such as railway systems. This gap poses a substantial risk, as it may hinder the precise representation, coordination, and integration necessary for large-scale railway projects. To examine these issues in greater depth, the present survey incorporated seven targeted questions aimed at professionals in the railway sector. These questions sought to identify and evaluate barriers at the regulatory and political levels. The key findings derived from the survey responses are presented in Figure 8 and discussed below.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Question sets about regulatory and political barriers.

The current application of BIM in the construction industry generally complies with ISO 19650, the international standard for the organisation and management of information across the lifecycle of built assets. This framework has enhanced efficiency in collaboration, data exchange, and asset management across general construction projects. However, within the railway sector, the BIM model introduces higher levels of complexity due to the integration of diverse datasets (e.g., labour costs, contract data, operational schedules), coupled with overlapping responsibilities across multiple authorities (Wang et al., 2025). Such complexity demands not only compliance with international standards but also the development of sector-specific policies and guidelines tailored to railway practices. In this study, RB1, RB3, RB6, and RB7 highlight the challenges associated with implementing international standards and guidelines.

• RB1 – Absence of comprehensive policies and standards: Respondents expressed divergent views on the lack of policy, legislation, and standards for BIM technologies, data management, and digital economy practices. Approximately 22.6% identified this issue as “Critical”, 25.8% rated it as “High”, while a larger proportion (32.3%) considered it a “Moderate” concern. The divergence reflects differing roles in the supply chain and varying levels of experience with BIM adoption in railway projects.

• RB3 – Inadequate guidance and tools: Less than half of respondents regarded the insufficient provision of advice, tools, standards, and regulatory codes for BIM implementation and assessment across the entire railway asset lifecycle as a significant barrier. Specifically, 19.4% rated it “Critical” and 25.8% as “High”, while 41.9% considered it “Moderate.” This indicates that while current guidelines are largely sufficient for general construction practices, notable gaps remain for complex railway projects, particularly in lifecycle management and performance assessment.

• RB6 – Information security protocols: Concerns around the absence of standardised information security frameworks, particularly in governing access control, authentication, and data protection, were rated as “Critical” or “High” by fewer than 40% of respondents. Nearly half classified it as “Moderate”, “Low”, or “Very Low.” This suggests that although data security is recognised as important, it is not currently regarded as the most urgent barrier to BIM adoption in railway practice.

• RB7 – Intellectual property rights (IPR) and data ownership: Issues surrounding intellectual property and data ownership in collaborative BIM environments elicited mixed feedback. Only 12.6% of respondents rated this as a “Critical” challenge, while 22.6% considered it of “Low” significance. Nevertheless, the lack of clear guidelines for intellectual property rights and ownership responsibilities remains a critical concern, particularly given the collaborative and cross-organisational nature of BIM in railway projects.

Overall, the survey findings reveal that while ISO 19650 provides a robust international framework, the railway sector faces unique challenges in policy, regulation, and standardisation. The most pressing issues are the absence of tailored policies and the inadequacy of comprehensive guidance and tools across the railway asset lifecycle. Intellectual property rights and ownership, though perceived as a lower priority by many respondents, represent a potentially significant risk area that requires clearer regulatory frameworks. By contrast, data security protocols, though important, are not yet perceived as an urgent barrier at this stage of BIM adoption.

Besides the international guidelines, the attitudes of local authorities (e.g., municipal governments) and the public play a critical role in influencing the penetration rate of BIM implementation. While BIM platforms are designed to support collaboration and transparency, competitive dynamics among stakeholders can undermine these capabilities by limiting data exchange and creating barriers to cooperation. Moreover, the integration of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies and the alignment with international standards present additional layers of complexity. RB2, RB4 and RB5 examines the challenges posed by stakeholder competitiveness, local authority incentives, and IoT integration, drawing on survey responses to highlight key concerns. Our survey results show that only 68% of respondents reported being aware of BIM standards or guidelines in their country.

• RB2 – Lack of incentives from authorities and funding bodies: Survey results indicate that 22.6% of respondents identified the absence of incentives from government, local authorities, funding entities, and/or businesses as a “Critical” issue, with a further 25.8% rating it as “High.” In contrast, 12.9% considered it a “Low” concern and 9.7% as “Very Low.” This demonstrates a strong perception that governmental and financial incentives are vital for promoting BIM adoption and ensuring that organisations recognise its potential to enhance business performance within the railway sector.

• RB4 – Regulatory barriers and IoT integration: A significant proportion of respondents highlighted challenges related to regulatory barriers for BIM model development, integration with IoT data, stakeholder engagement, and accountability. However, perceptions of severity were relatively moderate: 29% rated these barriers as “Low” and 22.6% as “Moderate.” This suggests that, while regulatory and IoT-related challenges exist, their influence on BIM adoption is perceived to be less critical at the current stage of international standardisation. In practice, this reflects the early maturity of IoT integration within BIM frameworks, where clear policies and governance mechanisms are still evolving.

• RB5 – Competitiveness among stakeholders: Respondents expressed divided views on the impact of competitiveness among stakeholders on BIM adoption. While 19.4% rated competitiveness as a “Critical” barrier, approximately 25.8% considered it to be of “Low” significance. These findings indicate that, although competition can hinder collaboration, communication, and joint progress in some contexts, the collaborative benefits of BIM are widely recognised as outweighing its limitations. The platform’s inherent capability for data sharing, coordination, and transparency suggests that the structural advantages of BIM implementation are gradually mitigating stakeholder competitiveness.

The survey findings highlight that stakeholder competitiveness, local authority engagement and IoT integration represent critical challenges in the adoption of BIM within the railway industry. The absence of government and funding incentives stands out as the most significant concern, underscoring the need for proactive policy measures to stimulate adoption and encourage investment in BIM-driven innovation. Conversely, regulatory barriers and IoT integration are currently perceived as less critical, reflecting both the early stage of digital convergence and the adequacy of existing international standards in providing a foundational framework. Stakeholder competitiveness, while occasionally hindering collaboration, is largely overshadowed by the broader advantages of BIM in fostering communication and efficiency.

4 Discussion

The Pearson chi-square test was employed to examine the relationship between the survey question sets and respondents’ background characteristics, including the level of economic development in their country, years of professional experience, sector of activity, and the life cycle stage within the circular value chain. A chi-square significance level below 0.05 indicates a statistically significant association between the variables (Cetin and Ertekin, 2011). Overall, the results suggest no substantial variance in responses with respect to country of origin or sector of activity. However, a significant correlation was observed between barriers to BIM implementation and respondents’ years of professional experience, particularly regarding regulatory obstacles. Supplementary Appendix SD further presents the correlations among the questions.

Most respondents emphasised the importance of technological barriers, with several items (TB13, TB16, TB18, TB19, and TB20) showing distinct variation across different levels of professional experience:

• TB13 (Lack of knowledge on BIM usage in relevant assets): Respondents with 5 years of experience or less perceived this issue as relatively minor, whereas those with ten or more years of experience expressed greater concern.

• TB16 (Lack of technical inputs from value chain stakeholders): A majority of respondents considered this a critical barrier, although some with 5–20 years of experience regarded it as less significant in the current stage of BIM adoption.

• TB18 (Lack of multi-scale BIM integration in complex built-environments): Respondents with 3 years or less of experience diverged in their assessments, while those with 20 or more years of experience consistently viewed this as a significant challenge.

• TB19 (Lack of BIM application for railway lifecycle assessment): Respondents with longer professional experience expressed heightened concern over this issue.

• TB20 (Lack of on-site applications capable of validating alignment between physical infrastructure and virtual models in cloud-based BIM environments): Most respondents considered this a less critical barrier, although those with 5–10 years of experience reported elevated concerns.

With respect to market-related barriers, three items (MB2, MB3, and MB4) revealed significant associations with respondents’ work experience:

• MB2 (Inadequate collaboration between stakeholders in digitalisation processes): While most respondents rated this as a critical challenge, those with 20 or more years of experience displayed polarised views.

• MB3 (Lack of public procurement frameworks and business models for BIM): Responses were polarised; however, participants with longer professional experience tended to view this as a less critical issue.

• MB4 (Lack of commercial technologies and IT infrastructure for data management in BIM platforms): A similar trend was observed, with less concern expressed by more experienced respondents. Regarding cultural and societal barriers, only one item showed a notable correlation with work experience.

Respondents with longer professional experience reported higher levels of concern about the additional pressures associated with fulfilling urban planning requirements in BIM models. Figure 9 illustrates the relative weights of the four critical barrier categories and their sub-dimensions. Overall, the weights are relatively balanced, indicating that respondents consider all four categories to be of comparable importance in influencing BIM adoption within the railway industry. Nevertheless, regulatory and political barriers were weighted slightly higher than the others, accounting for 26.88% of the total, suggesting that they are perceived as the most critical constraint to BIM implementation.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Evaluating the relative weight of barriers to BIM practice in railway.

5 Conclusion

This study conducted a structured survey to consolidate and classify the key challenges associated with the adoption of BIM in the railway industry. Based on an extensive literature review, four significant barriers were identified: (1) limitations in technological advancements, (2) uncertainty regarding benefits across the market and value chain, (3) cultural and social behaviours influencing organisational practices, and (4) the need for consistent policy frameworks and standardisation. These dimensions were used to design a questionnaire aimed at examining the challenges in greater depth. To capture an accurate picture of the current state of BIM implementation in the railway sector, the survey was administered anonymously during the BIM for Rail Bootcamp 2025 in Amersfoort, the Netherlands. This event convened a broad range of stakeholders from the European railway industry, including CEOs, rail directors, senior consultants, and other professionals with diverse levels of expertise and experience. Connected Places Catapult, an innovation organisation for the transportation and the built environment, recently published a report outlining the current challenges in DT adoption and proposing six solutions to address commercial, technical, and cultural barriers by 2025 (Connected Places Catapult, 2025). The report further highlights the urgent need for these solutions to support DT development through cross-sector collaboration, strategic planning, education, and knowledge sharing. Similar challenges were also identified in our study.

The results revealed several noteworthy insights. First, perspectives on BIM adoption were found to vary considerably across different stages of the railway project lifecycle, reflecting a fragmented understanding of BIM’s applicability. Second, an association was observed between participants’ years of professional experience and the type of barriers they perceived as most critical to BIM implementation. More experienced professionals tended to emphasise systemic and policy-related challenges, while newer entrants highlighted technical and cultural barriers. Additionally, the findings suggest that the railway sector is experiencing an influx of new professionals, indicating a gradual generational shift within the industry.

The survey was administered during a professional event held in the Netherlands, which convened experts and practitioners from the railway industry across multiple European countries. The participants represented a diverse range of positions within the sector, encompassing technical, managerial, and decision-making roles. The event hosted approximately 60 attendees, of whom nearly half completed the survey. While the absolute sample size may appear limited, the representativeness of the respondents is significant, as they occupy critical positions within rail-related projects and possess substantial expertise in the field. The research employed a semi-structured format, combining survey-based data collection with elements of interactive sessions that facilitated engagement with the research themes. This hybrid approach ensured that participants were not only respondents but also active contributors to discussions surrounding the study’s objectives. The survey instrument was specifically designed to generate quantifiable evidence, thereby enhancing the capacity to systematically evaluate and interpret the challenges associated with BIM implementation in the railway sector. Furthermore, the validity and reliability of the survey design, as well as the robustness of the outcomes, were rigorously assessed. Detailed accounts of the validation process, including methodological considerations and supporting evidence, are provided in Supplementary Appendices SB, SC.

Despite these contributions, the study is subject to certain limitations. The majority of participants were drawn from Europe and the United States, which may constrain the generalisability of the findings. Countries with advanced railway systems outside these regions, such as those in Asia, were underrepresented. Inclusion of a broader geographic sample would be essential for a more comprehensive investigation. In conclusion, this study advances understanding of the barriers to BIM adoption in the railway industry by offering empirical evidence derived from industry practitioners. Future research should address the identified geographic limitation and explore strategies for overcoming the technical, cultural, market-related, and regulatory challenges to support the broader and more effective implementation of BIM in global railway infrastructure projects.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

Y-HL: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing, Validation, Conceptualization, Software, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Resources. LK: Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Investigation, Software, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Data curation, Resources, Visualization. SK: Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review and editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation, Validation. PP: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – review and editing, Funding acquisition.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the European Commission, grant number: H2020-MSCA-RISE No. 691135. In addition, the authors wish to thank the European Commission and UKRI Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) for the financial sponsorship of Re4Rail project (Grant No. EP/Y015401/1).

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are given to the European Commission for H2020-MSCA-RISE Project No. 691135 “RISEN: Rail Infrastructure Systems Engineering Network”. The sponsorships and assistance from Royal HaskoningDHV, ProRail, BANEDANMARK, Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education (BCRRE) are highly appreciated. The APC has been kindly sponsored by the University of Birmingham Library’s Open Access Fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2025.1714009/full#supplementary-material

References

Abanda, F. H., Balu, B., Adukpo, S. E., and Akintola, A. (2025). Decoding ISO 19650 through process modelling for information management and stakeholder communication in BIM. Buildings 15 (3), 431. doi:10.3390/buildings15030431

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Agwa, T. C., and Celik, T. (2025). From barriers to breakthroughs: a deep dive into BIM integration challenges. Buildings 15 (7), 1116. doi:10.3390/buildings15071116

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Akponeware, A., Dawood, N., Rodriguez-Trejo, S., and Dawood, H. (2022). An integrated empirical analysis of UK rail industry’s carbon assessment: an industry perspective. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 10 (1), 315–330. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2021.12.012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bensalah, M., Elouadi, A., and Mharzi, H. (2019). Overview: the opportunity of BIM in railway. Smart Sustain. Built. Environ. 8 (2), 103–116. doi:10.1108/SASBE-11-2017-0060

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bew, M., and Richards, M. (2008). “BIM maturity model,” in Presented at the construction IT autumn 2008 members’ meeting. Brigton, U.K.

Google Scholar

Cetin, H., and Ertekin, E. (2011). The relationship between eighth grade primary school students’ proportional reasoning skills and success in solving equations. Int. J. Instr. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522929.

Google Scholar

Chen, Z.-S., Zhou, M.-D., Chin, K.-S., Darko, A., Wang, X.-J., and Pedrycz, W. (2023). Optimized decision support for BIM maturity assessment. Autom. Constr. 149, 104808. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104808

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Connected Places Catapult (2025). Accelerating innovation with digital twin technologies: impact case study. Sept. Available online at: https://cp.catapult.org.uk/case-study/accelerating-innovation-with-digital-twin-technologies/.

Google Scholar

Demirkesen, S., and Tezel, A. (2021). Investigating major challenges for industry 4.0 adoption among construction companies. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. doi:10.1108/ECAM-12-2020-1059

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dowd Mrics, T., and Marsh Mrics, D. (2020). The future of BIM: digital transformation in the UK construction and infrastructure sector. Available online at: https://www.rics.org/insights.

Google Scholar

Gao, Q., Qiao, L., Liu, W., and Xie, Y. (2025). An efficient software design for large-scale railway bim. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. doi:10.4018/IJISMD.373199

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haskoning (2025). BIM for rail Bootcamp 2025. Haskoning. Available online at: https://www.haskoning.com/en/newsroom/events/bim-for-rail-bootcamp-2025 (Accessed on August 05, 2025).

Google Scholar

HM Government (2012). Industrial strategy: government and industry in partnership. HM Gov. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-information-modelling.

Google Scholar

ISO (2018). ISO 19650-1:2018 organization and digitization of information about buildings and civil engineering works, including building information modelling (BIM) — information management using building information modelling part 1: concepts and principles, 1–34. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Google Scholar

Liu, S., Xie, B., Tivendal, L., and Liu, C. (2015). Critical barriers to BIM implementation in the AEC industry. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 7 (6), 162. doi:10.5539/ijms.v7n6p162

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Musonda, I., and Mwanaumo, E. (2022). Barriers to successful BIM applications: a literature review. 1st edn. London: CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781003325321

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olowa, T., Witt, E., Lill, I., Rasheed, A., Abdulmumin, A., and Adebiyi, R. (2023). Critical factors for effective BIM-enabled education: an adaptive structuration theory perspective. Buildings 13 (12), 3044. doi:10.3390/buildings13123044

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Parece, S., Resende, R., and Rato, V. (2025). Stakeholder perspectives on BIM-LCA integration in building design: adoption, challenges, and future directions. Build. Environ. 284, 113434. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113434

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pérez-García, A., Martín-Dorta, N., and Aranda, J. Á. (2024). Enhancing BIM implementation in Spanish public procurement: a framework approach. Heliyon 10 (9), e30650. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30650

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Quill, E., Ancygier, A., Waterton, O., Schmidt, S., and Singh, M. (2023). Railway development: lessons for the EU. 4i-Tract. Available online at: https://climateanalytics.org/publications/railway-development-lessons-for-the-eu.

Google Scholar

Tan, Y., Wang, H., Huang, R., Hall, D., Straub, A., and Qian, Q. K. (2025). Beyond barriers: stage-based and pathway-oriented conceptual model of resistance to BIM innovation. Autom. Constr. 179, 106503. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106503

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, G., and Zhang, Z. (2021). BIM implementation in handover management for underground rail transit project: a case study approach. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 108, 103684. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2020.103684

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, X., Wang, C., Yang, J., Chen, J., Chen, X., Li, G., et al. (2025). A blockchain-based trusted sharing method for railway transportation BIM data. Blockchain Res. Appl. 6, 100273. doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2024.100273

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Waqar, A., Qureshi, A. H., and Alaloul, W. S. (2023). Barriers to building information modeling (BIM) deployment in small construction projects: malaysian construction industry. Sustainability 15 (3), 2477. doi:10.3390/su15032477

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xu, H., Wei, Y., and Tan, Y. (2024). Optimization of emergency evacuation in complex rail transit station. J. Build. Eng. 95, 110321. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110321

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yan, H., and Damian, P. (2008). “Benefits and barriers of building information modelling,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE XII) & 2008 International Conference on Information Technology in Construction (INCITE 2008), Beijing, China, October 16–18, 2008. Editor A. Ren, Z. Ma, and X. Lu.

Google Scholar

Zhang, L., Chu, Z., and Song, H. (2019). Understanding the relation between BIM application behavior and sustainable construction: a case study in China. Sustainability 12 (1), 306. doi:10.3390/su12010306

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar