Platforms for Construction: Definitions, Classifications, and Their Impact on the Construction Value Chain

Abstract

This paper presents platforms as a solution to rethink how we build, addressing the pressing paradox between meeting growing housing demands. The construction sector has not fully grasped the advantages of platforms beyond standardisation and efficiency. In contrast, other sectors have begun acknowledging that platforms can capture increased value through interactions among firms within a networked ecosystem. Learning from other sectors, this paper investigates platforms in the construction context, aiming to define, classify, and assess their impact on the construction value chain. The research approach was abductive, involving a cross-sectoral review of 190 platforms across 16 Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) industries and semi-structured interviews with stakeholder groups of the construction value chain in Australia. The findings categorise platforms as physical, digital, or hybrid, highlighting their potential to move value-added activities upstream, facilitate collaboration, and foster innovation through data-driven insights. The paper’s novelty lies in the exhaustive cross-sectoral review, the classification of platforms in the construction context, and the proposition of a platform approach as a versatile framework tailored to diverse needs and circumstances that offers a fresh perspective on sustainable building practices. The practical contribution of this study lies in offering guidelines for industry practitioners aiming to develop or refine a platform-based approach tailored to the construction context.

1. Introduction

The construction industry currently finds itself amidst a paradox; on one hand, a burgeoning global housing crisis and the relentless surge in demand for housing [1,2], which means more development. On the other hand, the stark reality of climate change imposes a non-negotiable imperative: the need to curtail the environmental impact of building more housing [3]. This dichotomy leads to an uncomfortable truth that continuing the conventional construction practices is not an option [4]. But it also serves as a catalyst to rethink how we build, utilising the ongoing digital transformation [5]. While the construction industry has slowly started integrating Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) and offsite construction practices in its core business, it has yet to fully leverage benefits beyond standardisation and efficiency [6]. There is growing evidence that platforms have the capacity to change this narrative and bridge the disconnections in the construction value chain [7,8]. Due to the construction industry’s imperative to deliver physical products, industrialised house-building platforms prevail in the construction-related platform literature [9,10]. However, other industries have started recognising the potential of platforms to create and capture greater value by facilitating interactions between multiple firms in a networked ecosystem [11,12]. Given that the construction value chain also represents such a networked ecosystem, platforms can be leveraged to connect diverse groups of stakeholders, streamline processes, and reduce waste [13]. In contemporary discourse, the RIBA Plan of Work (DfMA Overlay), 2nd Edition [14], the Handbook for Design of Modular Structures (DfMA construction) published by Monash University [15], the Digital Engineering Framework published by the Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) in 2019 [16] are a few examples of frameworks that have made significant strides in delineating the construction value chain with modern definitions that capture the industry’s evolving landscape. Nevertheless, the integration and compatibility of a holistic platform-based value chain within such constructs remain a subject of inquiry. Platform-driven frameworks—are increasingly seen as an advance on conventional DfMA approaches, primarily because they transcend the limitations of individual-project standardisation by enabling scalable, ecosystem-wide component and process integration. Whereas DfMA focuses on making design and assembly more efficient at a project level, the platform approach erects a digital “kit of parts”—a reusable, interoperable catalogue of standardised components validated across multiple asset types (e.g., schools, hospitals, residential units)—Bryden Wood [17].

Because platforms are not the dominant mode of construction, there is a pressing need to demystify platforms in the context of construction. To understand platforms in construction, our research paper aims to delve into their definitions, classifications, and impact on the construction value chain. Three objectives were formulated to achieve this aim: (a) explore platforms operating across 16 Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) industries, categorise them and understand the implications for construction, (b) define platforms and their types, and (c) understand the impact of platforms on the construction value chain. The research approach is abductive, going back and forth to the literature to develop a definition and classification for platforms in the construction context following an in-depth cross-sectoral review of 190 platforms across 16 ANSIC industries. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from the different construction value chain actors to understand the impact of platforms on their motivations and roles. Professionals from four distinct Australian enterprises, each representing a unique stakeholder group within the construction value chain, were chosen for the interviews.

The definition of platforms in the construction context and its delineation into different types represent a novel contribution to the field. Utilising a ‘platform approach’ does not constitute a “one-size-fits-all” solution; instead, it represents a flexible framework that can be customised to suit different situations and organisational requirements. This adaptability grants businesses the ability to implement the most appropriate strategy, thereby establishing a foundation for sustainable and effective transformation within the industry. In an attempt to articulate the impact of platforms on the construction value chain, a shared vision emerged that might empower a shift towards the platform approach.

2. Literature Review

2.1. What Are Platforms?

A “Platform” can be most simply defined as a set of stable components [a core] that supports variation and continuous improvement in a system by enabling structured interfaces with other components [18]. Tushman and Murmann [19] consider the architecture behind all platforms as essentially the same, consisting of a set of ‘core’ components, defined by their low variety, and a complementary set of ‘peripheral’ components, with high variety. The low variety and long-lived elements of the system determine the interfaces and rules for governing interactions among the different parts. Platforms predetermine how constituent components interact and require a technical design for the product architecture and modularity of products [7,20]. As such, the decision on governance is made early in the development of a platform [21]. Platforms can be internal, facilitating the recombination of components within a company; supply chain platforms that coordinate the procurement and provision of components to an assembler; or industry platforms that leverage external capabilities from complementors [11,22,23]. However, the pervasiveness of contemporary digital technologies challenges the “either/or” nature of classification, requiring consideration of the “and” option [24].

2.2. The Changing Narrative About Platforms

In the early literature on platforms, the primary focus was on product platforms. These are defined as a set of common components, processes, or technologies that serve as the basis for efficiently producing various derivative products [25]. Adopting such a platform-centric approach necessitates a strategic change in organisations; instead of concentrating solely on discrete products, organisations must envision broader product families and explore how diverse market segments can be catered to using a common foundational platform [26]. Operationalising this approach mandates cross-functional coordination, foresight in planning, and dedicated investment in the development of the platform itself [25]. Platforms evolved as organisations that traditionally focused on selling products started recognising their potential to create and capture greater value by facilitating interactions between producers and consumers. A classic example would be how Microsoft’s Outlook began losing ground to a much more integrated Gmail; Gmail could identify complementary products or services, redefine its value proposition, optimise for the dynamic environment and pay attention to the network effect [27,28].

In this context, Gawer [11] conceptualised platforms as evolving organisations or meta-organisations that operate across an organisational continuum, including firms, supply chains and industry ecosystems. Her work emphasised that (a) platforms could be a foundation for multiple firms and innovators to develop complementary innovations (b) the increasing adoption of a platform by users, coupled with the growing contributions from developers, escalates its inherent value, (c) the dynamics between the central platform firm and the surrounding actors play a critical role in the platform’s success (d) platforms often involve both cooperation and competition among firms, requiring nuanced strategic management and governance. A key learning from platform literature is that in the platform era, ‘scale trumps product differentiation’; once a platform reaches a critical mass, its network effects can make it almost invincible [29]. With the advent of Industry 4.0 technologies, the narrative about platforms further evolved into hybrid platforms that integrate physical and digital components to enhance adaptability, where physical states are translated to digital via sensors and controlled by actuators [30]. Thus, in recent times, platforms have become a “clever combination of data, software, and ecosystem strategies” [22].

2.3. Platform Thinking in Construction

Initial scholarly works on platforms within the construction sector predominantly concentrated on the concept of industrialised house-building platforms that advocate the application of advanced manufacturing technologies and digital delivery methods to construct buildings in a sustainable manner [31,32]. In the discourse surrounding these platforms, the predominant focus has been on achieving enhanced efficiencies through the pursuit of optimised economies of scale or scope [33]. Within the construction industry, manufactured products and systems are already integrated; this prompted an inquiry into the distinct efficiencies platforms might offer compared to traditional buildings by delivering design value [7,34,35]. Further, the rising demand for digital project workflows presented an opportunity for technology companies to establish platform-based ecosystems centred on interoperable software tools that digitally oversee the project lifecycle [13,36,37]. While the preceding works establish a convincing value proposition for platforms in construction, the boldest claim to date was from Rupnik, Smith [38]. Based on case study analyses, they indicated that solely investing in digital and mechanical technologies, without adopting “platform thinking”, could escalate costs in comparison to traditional construction methods, thus highlighting its significance.

Recently, Zhou [39] introduced digitally enabled product platforms comprising (a) digitally enabled kit of parts, (b) digitally enabled interfaces, and (c) digitally enabled design rules for future products. Zhou [39] continues that platform rules are increasingly being digitally defined and codified using building information modelling (BIM) objects. Whyte, Mosca [37] added that such digitally enabled platforms provide the opportunity for firms to interact with industry-level initiatives strategically. Aksenova and Oti-Sarpong [7] took a distinct approach to platforms; they discussed the UK government’s Platform approach to Design for Manufacture and Assembly” (P-DfMA) that helps to integrate design, manufacture and construction with platform approaches, allowing commonality of standardised and manufactured components to be re-deployed across assets. However, Aksenova and Oti-Sarpong [7] cautioned that platforms could be restricted to enthusiastic claims and ambitious expectations, echoing similar technology-centric transformation attempts like the ‘BIM-Utopia’. Thus, without a critical understanding of the platform model’s implications on the construction value chain, it may persist as merely another technology-driven initiative without resulting in substantial changes [7].

While the concept of platforms is well-established in manufacturing and digital ecosystems, the construction industry introduces unique sociotechnical frictions that warrant a dedicated framework. These frictions include [17]:

Project temporality: Construction projects are time-bound, leading to fragmented and ad hoc partnerships.

Regulatory complexity: Compliance with local codes, planning regulations, and liability structures creates silos in information flow.

Supply chain fragmentation: The AEC sector is characterised by multi-tiered subcontracting and limited continuity of project teams.

To respond to these frictions, this paper proposes a construction-specific platform framework grounded in three interlocking dimensions:

Governance Structure: Construction platforms must account for power asymmetries between asset owners, contractors, and suppliers. Inspired by Gawer’s typology [12], governance in construction platforms requires multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms, including public–private agreements, shared design repositories, and dynamic IP arrangements.

Lifecycle Integration: Unlike software platforms, construction platforms must operate across discrete project stages, each with different actors and information needs. Platform success depends on integration from early feasibility (initiate) to long-term operation and decommissioning (operate and evolve), supported by standardised data models and lifecycle analytics.

Modularity and Contextual Adaptability: Platforms must allow modular reuse (e.g., façade systems, MEP components) yet remain adaptable to local conditions. This hybrid logic—standardisation with contextual variation—reflects the reality of DfMA-enabled construction. This conceptual lens provides a basis for evaluating platform maturity and identifying institutional adjustments required for broader adoption in construction.

Despite the growing body of literature on platform strategies in manufacturing, software, and digital services, there remains a significant gap in understanding how platform logic can be operationalised within the construction sector. Existing studies tend to focus either on isolated technologies or industrialised housing platforms, lacking a systemic view of platform integration across the construction lifecycle. Moreover, the absence of a construction-specific classification and the under-theorisation of sociotechnical factors—such as project fragmentation, regulatory complexity, and bespoke procurement—limit the applicability of existing models. This study addresses these gaps by proposing a construction-oriented platform typology and value chain model, grounded in cross-sectoral analysis and validated through stakeholder interviews, thereby offering a more actionable framework for platform-based transformation in construction.

3. Research Approach

This research adopted an abductive qualitative research design to investigate the conceptualisation, typology, and value chain implications of platforms in the construction sector. The approach involved iterative engagement between theory and empirical insights, enabling a progressive refinement of understanding through three phases: (1) An extensive review of existing platforms in other sectors focused on their classifications, operational range within the value chain, and the distinct stages of the platform value chain was conducted. This involved a comprehensive study of 190 platforms across 16 ANZSIC industries. (2) Drawing from the insights of the first stage, the research further delved into defining platforms, their classifications and value-chain specific to the construction realm through an iterative process of engaging with the data set and revisiting existing theories [40,41,42]. (3) Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each stakeholder group as shown in Table 1 within the construction value chain to understand and discuss the impact of platform-based approaches on the construction value chain. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, aimed at ensuring comprehensive representation across the key stakeholder groups in the construction value chain. Our objective was to capture diverse perspectives from actors positioned at various stages—ranging from asset owners and developers to designers, manufacturers, contractors, and regulatory bodies.

The selection process was guided by the following criteria:

Relevance of Role: Participants were chosen based on their direct involvement in decision-making, innovation, or implementation activities related to construction processes, procurement, or industrialised approaches.

Platform Exposure: Preference was given to individuals with experience in or exposure to platform-based strategies (e.g., modular construction, digital coordination platforms, off-site manufacturing).

The selection criteria were guided by the following inclusion parameters:

Relevance to Platform Theory: The platform had to demonstrate core platform characteristics—such as modularity, shared components or services, facilitation of third-party participation, or coordination across a multi-actor ecosystem—as defined by [11].

Operational Maturity: Platforms included in the study were operational (i.e., launched and in use), ensuring that the analysis reflected real-world practices rather than conceptual models.

Sectoral Diversity: We intentionally sampled platforms across both product- and service-oriented industries under ANZSIC, to ensure broad coverage of different platform logics—digital, physical, and hybrid.

Data Availability: Only platforms with sufficient publicly accessible documentation (e.g., websites, case studies, media coverage, or annual reports) were included to enable meaningful cross-comparison. Platforms were initially classified into physical, digital, or hybrid based on the dominant mode of value delivery and interaction. To support transparency and reproducibility, a deductive coding framework was developed, clustering platforms by their dominant lifecycle phase (initiate, standardise, design, construct, operate), type (digital, physical, hybrid), and sectoral logic. The resulting matrix was validated through two rounds of peer checking among the authors.

The paper employed an abductive research approach, as delineated by Spens and Kovács [43], which facilitated a dynamic interplay between the conceptualisation of platforms and their value chain in construction, along with the integration of multiple pre-existing theoretical frameworks. We address the existing knowledge gap by defining platforms, their classification and their impact on the construction value chain. Epistemologists make a distinction between theoretical knowledge (“knowing that”) and practical knowledge (“knowing how”); understanding engineering requires greater importance on “knowing how” [44,45]. The multi-faceted approach comprising the three phases, as described above, ensured the generalisability of our propositions, offering a nuanced understanding of how platforms might influence the construction industry [46]. Distributing informants across various peripheries of stakeholder groups in the construction value chain also enhanced the external validity of the research design [47]. Clear protocols were set up to conduct the cross-sectoral review and semi-structured interviews, followed by an iterative model for qualitative data analysis consisting of data display, data reduction and drawing conclusions to ensure the traceability of the research process [48]. The reliability of this research is partly based on its linkage to theoretical frameworks; it is reinforced by incorporating secondary data when necessary to ensure a strong connection to theory and to minimise biases in the analysis of primary data [46].

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1. Platform Thinking Across Industries

In analysing 190 platforms across 16 ANZSIC sectors, platforms existed in three distinct forms: solely digital, solely physical, or a combination of both—hybrid, as shown in Table 2. The majority of the platforms (approximately 60 per cent) were found to be digital. Approximately 25 per cent of platforms studied were physical platforms, and the remaining 15 per cent were hybrid. These findings reflected the recent growth in opportunities created by digital platforms and challenges experienced across the industry in developing platforms that span both digital and physical dimensions. Although digital platforms predominated across all sectors, the strongest presence was in mining, retail, information media and telecommunications, professional scientific and technical services, and education and training. Hybrid platforms had the most significant presence in electricity, gas, water and waste services. Manufacturing, financial and insurance services, and arts and recreation had an equal share of physical and digital platforms.

While classifying platforms as physical, digital, or hybrid helps clarify their technological structure, it is equally important to recognise that platforms can evolve dynamically across the project lifecycle. For instance, digital platforms often serve as the entry point in early stages—enabling site feasibility, design collaboration, or procurement transparency—while hybrid platforms may emerge later as digital and physical layers integrate through sensors, feedback systems, or DfMA components. Similarly, physical platforms may gradually incorporate digital layers to enhance traceability, remote control, or carbon tracking. These complementary effects suggest that platforms are not static entities but part of an evolving ecosystem architecture. Understanding this evolution allows construction firms to strategically plan staged platform adoption, where digital pilots may pave the way for hybrid platforms, and where operational data informs future standardisation and design. This perspective offers a dynamic lens that is crucial for actionable platform implementation.

TikTok (TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/) is perhaps one of the more interesting contemporary hybrid platforms as the standardised structure initiated by TikTok enables users to creatively design and construct short videos of the physical world and operationally share over the digital platform, hence combining the benefits of both the physical and digital worlds in one platform. However, only a small number of platforms operated across the value chain (as illustrated in Table 3 below), considerable learning has been gained from each of the different stages in the product life cycle.

Standardisation and the use of platforms for operations predominated across the platforms observed in approximately 70 per cent of all platforms reviewed. Almost diametrically opposite was the use of platforms in the initiate, design and construct phases of the life cycle, with 22 to 28 per cent of platforms studied. The polarity of these results from the 190 platforms studied provides insight into the current challenges experienced across industries in expanding the use of platforms across different points in the life cycle, as discussed below:

Initiate—The ‘initiate’ stage of the lifecycle is observed where there is a major player in an industry. This may be through a government initiative, commercial aggregator, or large player, or maybe led by an owner. Where ‘initiation’ is commercially led, it is observed to come from large players or franchisors seeking to leverage capital contribution in order to lock in stakeholders. The two sectors where the ‘initiation’ of the product is most commonly part of the platform are financial and insurance services, administrative and support services, and public administration and safety. The initiate stage is perhaps the greatest divergence between industries, which can be reinterpreted based on whether the product is pushed or pulled into the market. For example, many consumer products, like soap, are created by a manufacturer and pushed into the market. Hence, the manufacturer initiates the product, whereas services, like utilities, are pulled by the demand of a consumer, so the consumer initiates the service.

Standardise—Standardisation was widely observed across sectors as a key component of platforms. Many of the sectors observed (one-third) only had standardised platforms. For example, the sectors of information, media and telecommunications, rental, hiring and real estate services and education and training are based on standard offerings. However, it is important to differentiate these standard products against standardised processes, where economies of scope replace economies of scale. The simplest example is in the logistics sector, where the standardisation of processes and the shipping container to move products that can fit inside has provided economies of scope at a global level. In contrast, the retail sector pursues a platform strategy of high product diversity to align with local customer demand, underpinned by a standardised process. The most unique physical platform being the fashion retailer Zara [49], where innovation and short product life has been leveraged using a standardised process to drive increased consumer interest and consumption of continuously changing product.

Design—The ‘design’ stage of the lifecycle was dominated by the creation and iterative development of tacit knowledge to create codified outputs used in other stages of the life cycle. Within the ‘design’ stage, there were many examples of technologies for sharing between design sub-stages, which may explain the consistency across sectors of approximately 25 percent of the 190 platforms including design. Novel examples of non-standard product design physical platforms include the Subway (Subway fast food restaurant: http://www.subway.com/) food service provider which provides fresh ingredients assembled to their customers’ design in store, AusTrade (AusTrade, a division of Australian Trade and Investment Commission: https://www.austrade.gov.au/) that provides a global platform from which Australian businesses can launch their global marketing efforts and medical clinics that enable a wide range of health conditions to be addressed based on the specific needs of the patient. Innovative standardised design platforms have emerged with digital platforms. Examples include: Canva (Canva: http://www.canva.com/), for the design of digital media, SnapFish (SnapFish: http://www.snapfish.com/) for the remote print of images on 2D or 3D materials as selected by the consumer, and GoogleClassroom (Google Classroom: http://edu.google.com/products/classroom/, accessed on 13 July 2025) that enables teachers to design all teaching and learning materials, multimedia, assessment and communication for their students.

Construct—The Construct stage of the lifecycle was observed to have materially changed as a consequence of digital platforms. Pre-digital platform businesses like mail-order catalogues and HomeExchange (HomeExchange: http://www.homeexchange.com/) required businesses to invest in product selection, inventory and the design and construction of a physical catalogue in advance of orders received from customers. Contemporary digital platforms like Instagram (Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/), UberEats (UberEats: http://www.ubereats.com/), Alibaba (Alibaba: http://www.alibaba.com/), and eBay (eBay: http://www.ebay.com) have shifted investment back onto the provider of the product or service to construct the offer, such that capital investment is minimised. The platform is positioned as an intermediary and simply takes a commission on sales. Hence, contemporary platforms are asset-light and more specialised in their scope of offering.

Operate—The Operate stage is where one of the most significant industry transformations occurred across sectors. Over 70 percent of the platforms reviewed in this work have focussed on the Operate stage, and 75 percent of those have leveraged standardisation. Notably, it was in the Operate stage that business model innovation took place. For example, in food services, digital platforms have shifted the offer from high supply availability to customers booking based on delivery time availability, in effect shifting traditional make-to-stock approaches to make-to-order business models. Another example is in lowering the cost of entry and multiple. Amazon Web Services (AWS) (AWS: http://aws.amazon.com/) provides an unlimited global platform of computer storage facilities for individuals and businesses that can be onboarded as and when required, using an on-demand model similar to the approach by Netflix (Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/au/) in the information, media and telecommunications sector.

4.2. Implications for Construction

In Table 4, the insights from the cross-sectoral review of platforms are translated into implications for platform development in construction.

The cross-sectoral analysis revealed that platforms are classified as physical, digital, or hybrid based on the characteristics of their supply chain nodes and flows. This classification is primarily due to the platforms’ operational alignment with supply chain dynamics, highlighting their interconnected and continuous nature. This is supported by Biswas and Sen [50] stating that any supply chain comprises information, material and financial flow through four nodes: Supplier node (Design data, objects status, schedule, finance data and ownership); Manufacturer node (Production data, process data, yield data, compliance, reliability data, maintenance and warranty); Distributor node (Schedule, order information, customer feedback and finance data); and Client/Customer node (Product information and ownership, product delivery, and warranty). Platform literature considers platforms in construction to be enablers of sustainable construction methods and circularity [51,52,53,54]. Given this, carbon flow has been added to the information, material and financial flow, as stated by Biswas [50]). The definitions of physical, digital and hybrid platforms for construction emerged from analysing the construction supply chain’s nodes and flows.

Physical Platforms are product architectures that create derivative streams of products that operate through material and information flows, where the manufacturer node, comprising production data, process data, yield data, compliance data, reliability data, maintenance, and warranty data is most active. Physical platforms are ‘information-centred’ and essentially mono-directional (one-way), where static production data and materials are fed into the platform. Thus, design information (supplier node), financial data, schedule, order information, etc., (distributor node) and product information, warranty, etc., (client/customer node) are maintained in supporting systems and often need to be made interoperable with the primary physical platform.

Digital Platforms are “online intermediaries” that act as facilitators of value exchange through information flow. They are “people-centred”, wherein the actors of the supply chain play an important role in the exchange of value. Therefore, the supplier, distributor and client/customer nodes are dominant in digital platforms. Digital platforms enable a two-directional information flow that encourages cooperation and collaboration. However, digital platforms do not go beyond the digital space, including machine-to-machine communication (the manufacturing node and material flow) or financial transactions without the involvement of third-party financial institutions. The use of technologies such as blockchain could enable such transactions that are trusted in digital platforms [55,56,57,58].

Digital Platforms evolved from point solutions; scalability and adaptability are the key differentiators between a platform solution and a point solution. Platform solutions provide a robust foundation that can meet various use cases and be rapidly implemented across multiple facilities, in contrast to point solutions, which are designed to address a single, specific problem [59]. Despite the research on various digital tools being implemented in construction, this contrast is rarely discussed in construction related literature. Examples of point solutions include Oracle Primavera P6^® for scheduling, Aconex^® and Procore^® for collaboration of project information and process management. These point solutions are feature rich, hardcoded, and developed with user personas in mind. Hard coding refers to writing a fixed solution. Data is hardcoded into a programme or other executable object’s source code rather than being retrieved from external sources or generated at runtime [60]. Therefore, the point solutions often force businesses to transfer data to other processes manually, rely on proprietary reporting tools, and need to leverage various interfaces for the same data. Customisation, if possible, is only enabled for the ‘user interface’. Digital Platforms are integrated solutions that can either replace point solutions or extract information from a point solution to a point of consolidation; they work best for seamless reporting of data in dashboards without manual intervention [61]. Even though the ultimate goal would be to replace point solutions with an end-to-end integrated solution, businesses usually continue to use some point solutions and progressively consolidate them into one integrated solution to reduce business disruption as much as possible [62]. However, the biggest advantage of digital platforms in that they automate multi-disciplinary processes like earned value management, risk management, cost-schedule forecasting and subcontractor-supplier management, where data is extracted from two different disciplines [63]. Examples of digital platforms in construction include ptBlink^® (ptBlink https://ptblink.com/), Willow^® (Willow https://willowinc.com/) and Open Built^® (Open Built http://openbuilt.io/).

Hybrid Platforms are platforms where all four supply chain nodes, namely supplier, manufacturer, distributor and client/customer nodes, are active, and there is a simultaneous flow of information and materials (…intermingling of modular physical components with digital functionality [30]. In such platforms, states of the physical world are continuously mapped to digital representations (using sensors embedded in physical components), and then the world is operated and controlled through a set of actuators (digital to analogue converters). Thus, hybrid platforms are machine-centred and often utilise cyber-physical systems (…such as sensors embedded in physical components). From a managerial and governance perspective, hybrid platforms create a completely new dynamic and require the integration of design and governance principles associated with both physical and digital platforms, which often generates tension. The hybrid platform approach demands the coming together of technology, context and strategy [22]. While current hybrid platforms encompass information and material flows only, future hybrid platforms would need to integrate with financial and carbon flows to achieve complete circularity. However, such platforms would require robust governance mechanisms for intellectual property and liability, data privacy and security [52].

4.3. The Construction Platform Value Chain

As discussed in Section 4.1, the cross-sectoral review platforms illustrated that platforms generally have five stages in their value chain: Initiate, Standardise, Design, Construct and Operate. To strengthen the theoretical grounding, the proposed value chain is reinterpreted through the lens of platform ecosystem theory. Unlike linear project lifecycles, platforms exhibit recursive and multi-directional dynamics, where each stage continuously informs others. With this as the basis, three contemporary frameworks that propose the stages of a construction value chain and include modern approaches aligned to the platform approach in construction were utilised in this paper to arrive at a platform value chain for construction. The first framework considered was the RIBA Plan of Work (DfMA Overlay), 2nd Edition [14], primarily because it is one of the most widely accepted frameworks globally, and the inclusion of Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) into the framework made it all the more suitable in the platform context. The second framework originated from the Handbook for Design of Modular Structures (DfMA construction) published by Monash University [15]. In an Australian context, this handbook has been widely used as a guiding framework for DfMA construction. Finally, since the platform approach in this paper has a distinct digital angle, considering the Digital Engineering Framework published by the Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) in 2019 was deemed suitable [16]. This is a comprehensive framework based on ISO 19650 [64], detailing the stages of digital (data) delivery in a construction project, which forms a critical element of platforms, as seen in the previous sections.

The stages of the platform value chain that emerged from the cross-sectoral review were integrated with the construction value chains proposed by the three preceding frameworks that culminated in a construction platform value chain with a focus on seamless integration of early planning, design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) principles, and comprehensive lifecycle management from project inception through to disposal. This workflow advocates that standardisation, a key stage of the platform value chain, is undertaken during the ‘preparation and briefing’ and early ‘design and engineering’ phases of a project by leveraging existing product architectures. Another unique value proposition of this workflow is its allowance of parallel stages to enhance project flexibility and continuous learning. Data-driven insights from the ‘operate, main and evolve’ stage feed into the strategic definition stage, sustaining the platform value chain’s circular flow, ensuring projects are not only efficiently executed but also sustainably managed and capable of evolving over time. Figure 1 illustrates the emergence of the platform value chain for construction from the cross-sectoral platform value chain.

To understand and discuss the impact of platform-based approaches on the construction value chain, semi-structured interviews with developers, designers/engineers, specialised contractors, and associated supply chain actors highlighted a shift from isolated operations to collaborative, ecosystem-oriented approaches.

The key themes that emerged are now categorised as follows:

Early Supply Chain Integration—Emphasising the strategic shift towards involving manufacturers, designers, and specialised contractors earlier in the project lifecycle.

Digital Enablement and Platform Utilisation—Highlighting the growing use of digital platforms for feasibility, collaboration, and coordination.

Changing Roles and Business Models—Documenting the evolution from traditional contractor-led workflows to outcome-based, service-oriented models (e.g., platform consultants, product-as-a-service).

Scalability and Prototyping—Stressing the importance of economies of scale, standardisation, and early prototyping facilitated through platform logic.

Sustainability and Knowledge Sharing—Identifying the desire to embed sustainable practices and enhance learning through platform-driven data insights and collaboration.

The interviewees underscored the significance of early integration and the strategic use of digital platforms for value co-creation, sensing a departure from traditional contractor-led models towards more inclusive, platform-driven collaborations. S2, representing a developer, stated, “We would like to increasingly leverage digital platforms for tasks such as automated site feasibility studies, fostering collaboration within the construction value chain, and promoting sustainable building practices”. S3, a developer from material processing, also mentioned that developers may now engage with a wider range of supply chain actors beyond just the main contractor. This interaction can be facilitated by a digital platform or marketplace, allowing engagement to begin earlier in the process. Such early involvement enables prototyping and the incorporation of platform DNA into existing products and processes, enhancing integration and innovation across the supply chain. This would imply more inclusive contracts, allowing for early-stage prototyping and the integration of platform methodologies into the traditional workflow. S1, representing designers and engineers, said, “We are continuously improving to understand customer requirements, carry digital designs to fabrication often through the kit-of-parts approach, train supply chain stakeholders, and embed sustainable practices”. Their extended role emphasises the potential of becoming platform consultants, shifting from hourly rates to outcome-based models, or possibly becoming technology providers.

The interviewees agreed that there would be a diminishing role for the general contractors as they ceased to be the single point of engagement with the associated supply chain stakeholders; however, the role of specialised contractors would emerge as significant. Traditionally, they are usually downstream in the value chain, but with more digital interactions, they can now be involved earlier and aim for economies of scale to inform design. S6, representing a component manufacturer and specialised contractor, stated, “We are seeking to enhance their position in the value chain by adopting digital tools for better collaboration, aiming for scalability, trust-based partnerships, and improved safety during assembly.” S4, representing material processing and component manufacturers, emphasised the importance of detailed technical reviews and consultations involving the supply chain actors, the developer, and the platform consultant to achieve that. Similarly, S5, representing material processing and component manufacturers, stated, “such associated supply chain actors typically have a chain of business archetypes upstream to downstream. For example, they might produce a material, add value to it, provide value added products, provide total solutions or provide a channel for the distribution of the material.” The associated supply chain actors amongst the interviewees consented that their role would evolve towards adopting platform strategies in their offerings, improving customer experiences through detailed technical reviews and consultations early in the value chain, developing skills related to platform utilisation, and advocating sustainable products. The interview results confirmed the intent to move value-adding products and services upstream, expand contribution to the construction value chain, continuously improve through data-driven insights, seamlessly collaborate in a partnering environment, and early prototyping, which was shared across stakeholder groups.

While platform-based strategies have demonstrated transformative potential in industries such as automotive, aerospace, and digital services [26], their application in construction has been fraught with limitations stemming from the sector’s intrinsic characteristics. A primary challenge lies in the fragmented nature of the construction industry, characterised by numerous small-scale subcontractors, consultants, and loosely coupled project teams [26]. This fragmentation impedes the formation of cohesive platform ecosystems, which depend on stable and integrated networks of complementors and users to generate value through reuse, standardisation, and network effects [11]. The fragmented nature of construction—manifesting vertically across project phases, horizontally among actors within the same phase, and longitudinally as project teams disband—undermines the core premise of platform strategies.

Moreover, the bespoke nature of construction projects, shaped by local regulations, client-specific requirements, and unique site conditions, often undermines the standardisation and repeatability required for product platforms to succeed [32]. While mass customisation is theoretically possible through modularisation and platform-based design [10], in practice, the variability across projects hampers the reuse of components and process routines.

Another critical concern is the limited openness and interoperability of current construction platforms. Many digital solutions are proprietary, lacking open APIs or adherence to standardised data exchange protocols, thereby constraining inter-organisational collaboration and data fluidity across the supply chain [7,65]. As a result, the promise of platforms enabling seamless integration across design, manufacturing, and construction often remains unfulfilled. This is further exacerbated by the misalignment of regulatory frameworks, building codes, and procurement models that are yet to evolve to accommodate platform-based or industrialised construction approaches.

Digital platforms, while more adaptable and structurally aligned with the ideal attributes of product platforms—such as configurability, structured information, and openness—often struggle to capture value across the entire project lifecycle [17]. Their influence is typically concentrated in the early design or construction phases, with limited traction in strategic definition or post-occupancy operations [8,33]. Furthermore, the risk-averse nature of construction clients and public procurement practices, which favour cost certainty and proven delivery models, discourages the adoption of platform-based innovations that require long-term investment and cross-stakeholder collaboration.

Finally, the ecosystemic maturity required for successful platform operation—such as access to certified suppliers, skilled labour for offsite construction methods, and integration with logistics and digital infrastructure—is often lacking in construction markets. Without a coordinated effort to develop this ecosystem, platform-based approaches tend to remain fragmented or revert to conventional delivery methods.

In sum, while platforms hold significant promise for improving productivity, sustainability, and collaboration in construction, their implementation is contingent upon deeper institutional reforms, ecosystem development, and cultural shifts within the industry. Future research should explore mechanisms to support platform openness, align regulatory systems, and enable modular ecosystems through shared governance models and public–private partnerships.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

The theoretical contribution of this paper was to develop an understanding of platforms in the construction context. This included their definitions, classifications, and impact on the construction value chain. This delineation represents a novel contribution to the field. It is noteworthy that while both academic and professional spheres have highlighted the productivity merits of platforms, a coherent shared vision regarding the future trajectory of platforms in the construction sector remains elusive. This gap in understanding has been addressed within the confines of this paper. The practical contribution of this paper facilitates corporate advancements toward the development of integrative platform strategies. In an attempt to understand the impact of platforms on the construction value chain, a shared vision emerged among the stakeholder groups that might enable a shift towards the platform approach.

The authors acknowledge some blind spots in the value chain actors presented in this paper, including financiers (upstream) and asset managers (downstream), who will also play critical roles in the potential construction platform value chain. For a future study, these actors are required to be included in the value chain, and their motivations and roles are explored. This paper draws upon insights from a group of interviewees curated from Australia, acknowledging that these instances may not encompass the full spectrum of potential real-world scenarios. The limitation of this paper lies in its qualitative approach and directional nature; the paper intends to extract lessons from other sectors and construction supply chain actors to inform future research and development in the built environment. The findings should be interpreted as a systematic aggregation of data to provide a direction to the platform conversation in construction, and future work is expected to build on, test and improve the findings of this work through detailed case studies. For a more profound understanding, future research could also map existing platform companies in construction against the attributes of an ideal construction platform. The methodology contributes to construction innovation research by advancing a multi-layered analytical framework that moves beyond conventional inductive or deductive strategies. It demonstrates how abductive reasoning can iteratively align sectoral insights with theory to surface new classifications and interaction patterns relevant to platform strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.H., P.D. and D.M.; methodology, A.A.H. and P.D.; validation, D.M.; formal analysis, A.A.H. and P.D.; original draft preparation, A.A.H., P.D. and D.M.; writing—review and editing, D.M. and R.C.M.; visualization, A.A.H.; supervision, D.M.; project administration, R.C.M. and D.M.; funding acquisition, R.C.M. and D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

All platforms reviewed in this paper (190 platforms across 16 ANZSIC industries) are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Priyadarshini Das was employed by the company Lumberfi Inc. The remaining 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.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figure and Tables

Figure 1 Emergence of the construction platform value chain (Construction Platform Ecosystem Cycle).

Table 1

The participant details for the semi-structured interviews.

Code	Designation	Experience	Area of Experience	Stakeholder Group
S1	Strategic Development Director	20+	Building services-integrated solutions	Specialised Contractor/Designers and Engineers
S2	General Manager	15+	Construction management	Developer
S3	Senior Manager	15+	Construction Business Development	Developer/Material Processing
S4	Engineering Manager	15+	Engineering management of mega projects	Material Processing/Component Manufacturers
S5	Business Development Lead	20+	Construction Business Development	Material Processing/Component Manufacturers
S6	Enterprise Transformation Leader	15+	Digital Transformation	Material Processing/Component Manufacturers/Specialised Contractor

Table 2

Types of platforms reviewed by ANZSIC sector: digital, physical, and hybrid.

Industry Sector (ANZSIC)	Digital	Physical	Hybrid	Total
A—Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	6	2	3	11
B—Mining	7	1	1	9
C—Manufacturing	4	5	2	11
D—Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services	6	2	5	13
F—Wholesale Trade	7	4	1	12
G—Retail Trade	10	5	-	15
H—Accommodation and Food Services	4	4	2	10
I—Transport, Postal and Warehousing	8	5	1	14
J—Information Media and Telecommunications	13	1	3	17
K—Financial and Insurance Services	5	6	5	16
L—Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services	9	3	1	13
M—Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	12	1	1	14
N—Administrative and Support Services Public Administration and Safety	6	4	4	14
P—Education and Training	13	1	-	14
Q—Health Care and Social Assistance	8	3	2	13
R—Arts and Recreation Services	5	2	3	10

Table 3

Platforms that span all stages of the value chain.

ANZSIC Sector	Platform	Description	Physical Digital/Hybrid
C	MasterControl	Document management system used in pharmaceutical industry that spans regulatory approvals, batch control, quality control and regulatory reporting	D
G	MailOrder	Mail order retail pre-dates online retail. Lead company selects a range of product, assembles into a catalogue and makes the catalogue available to a wide range of potential consumers. Consumer mail orders then triggered delivery of the items selected.	P
I	Postal Service	Established locations for receipt, processing, logistics & distribution of mail, nationally & interaction globally.	P
J	Phone network	Platform of exchanges connected by wires/wirelessly for the transfer of voice calls between one standard phone handset to another.	H
K	Insurance Policies	Standard policy contract provides a mechanism upon which both insured and insurer can rely upon occurrence of an event listed within the policy.	H
K	SWIFT	Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a Belgian cooperative society providing services related to the execution of financial transactions and payments between banks worldwide.	D
L	RentMan	Software solution for the management of equipment used by a hire company using barcoded identifiers.	D

Table 4

Key implications for construction.

Key Finding	What It Means	Implications for Construction
Most platforms are digital.	Barriers to entry in digital platforms are lower than for physical platforms.	Building is principally a physical activity, so adoption challenges will be higher.
Few platforms span both the digital and physical space.	Value capture requires a higher level of innovation when spanning digital and physical spaces.	Higher level of investment in innovation will be required upfront to establish a building platform.
Only a small number of platforms span the entire lifecycle and, in such cases, these are typically either within the digital or physical space and not across both spaces.	Sustainability of a platform has a short shelf life relative to product life.	The long life of buildings challenges the demonstrated capability of the platform model to sustain beyond design and construct to end of life.
Initiate stage of the lifecycle is typically dominated by a large player in industry.	Leadership is required for the establishment of a platform.	Investors and developers have a lead role in the industry and would be well placed to initiate a platform.
Standardisation is widely observed in platforms, underpinning their operation.	Platforms need components like LEGO bricks that fit together effortlessly.	There are many standards in building, which will need to be brought together to enable interlinking with one another.
Digital technologies have shifted investment from the platform provider to the providers of products and services.	Exchange relationships, liabilities and responsibilities are changing.	Building has already captured the benefit of shifting responsibilities to subcontractors, so immediate return on establishing a platform will be less.
Operate stage is the domain of the platforms studied and has provided considerable opportunity for business model innovation.	Operate stage attracts investment in the platform business model.	Investors and developers seeking to develop platforms would benefit from including facilities managers who operate buildings to capture the operate investment opportunities.

References

1. Clarke, A.; Cheshire, L.; Parsell, C.; Morris, A. Reified scarcity & the problem space of ‘need’: Unpacking Australian social housing policy. Hous. Stud.; 2024; 39, pp. 565-583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2022.2057933]

2. Bawuah, P. Can Ontario’s Housing Crisis Be Fixed? Understanding the Origins and Proposed Solutions to an Ongoing Crisis in Housing Affordability. 2024; Available online: https://uwindsor.scholaris.ca/home (accessed on 13 July 2025).

3. van Oorschot, J.A.W.H.; Halman, J.I.M.; Hofman, E. The adoption of green modular innovations in the Dutch housebuilding sector. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 319, 128524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128524]

4. Tavares, V.; Soares, N.; Raposo, N.; Marques, P.; Freire, F. Prefabricated versus conventional construction: Comparing life-cycle impacts of alternative structural materials. J. Build. Eng.; 2021; 41, 102705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102705]

5. Rangasamy, V.; Yang, J.-B. The convergence of BIM, AI and IoT: Reshaping the future of prefabricated construction. J. Build. Eng.; 2024; 84, 108606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108606]

6. Montazeri, S.; Lei, Z.; Odo, N. Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) in Construction: A Holistic Review of Current Trends and Future Directions. Buildings; 2024; 14, 285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010285]

7. Aksenova, G.; Oti-Sarpong, K. Beyond “platformania” in the construction sector: Conceptualisations and implications of product platformisation in the UK. Constr. Manag. Econ.; 2024; 42, pp. 229-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2023.2259015]

8. Das, P.; Hijazi, A.A.; Maxwell, D.W.; Moehler, R.C. Can Business Models Facilitate Strategic Transformation in Construction Firms? A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 13022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151713022]

9. Veenstra, V.S.; Halman, J.I.; Voordijk, J.T. A methodology for developing product platforms in the specific setting of the housebuilding industry. Res. Eng. Des.; 2006; 17, pp. 157-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-006-0022-6]

10. Jansson, G.; Viklund, E. Advancement of platform development in industrialised building. Procedia Econ. Financ.; 2015; 21, pp. 461-468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00200-2]

11. Gawer, A. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Res. Policy; 2014; 43, pp. 1239-1249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006]

12. Gawer, A. Digital platforms’ boundaries: The interplay of firm scope, platform sides, and digital interfaces. Long Range Plan.; 2021; 54, 102045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102045]

13. Mosca, L.; Jones, K.; Davies, A.; Whyte, J.; Glass, J. Platform Thinking for Construction. Plus, Transforming Construction NETWORK; UCL: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sites/bartlett/files/digest-platform-thinking-for-construction.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2025).

14. RIBA. The RIBA Plan of Work (The Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) Overlay); 2nd ed. Royal Institute of British Architects London: London, UK, 2021.

15. Monash University. Handbook for the Design of Modular Structures; Monash University: Clayton, VIC, Australia, 2017.

16. TfNSW. Digital Engineering Standard Part 2—Requirements; TfNSW,. Digital Engineering at Transport for NSW: Sydney, Australia, 2019.

17. Hijazi, A.A.; Das, P.; Li, Y.; Moehler, R.C.; Maxwell, D.W. A contingency approach to platform implementation: Platform types, attributes, and value chain integration. Build Res. Inf.; 2025; pp. 1-12. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09613218.2025.2510270 (accessed on 13 July 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2025.2510270]

18. Baldwin, C.Y.; Woodard, C.J. The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platf. Mark. Innov.; 2009; 32, pp. 19-44.

19. Tushman, M.L.; Murmann, J.P. Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organization Outcomes. Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 1998.

20. Maxwell, D.W. The Case for Design-Value in Industrialised House Building Platforms: Product to Ecosystem. Ph.D. Thesis; The University of Sydney: Camperdown, NSW, Australia, 2018.

21. Hijazi, A.A.; Das, P.; Moehler, R.C.; Maxwell, D. A Roadmap to A Shared Vision for Platforms: The Motivations and Roles of Stakeholders in The Transformation from Projects to Platforms. Proceedings of the Creative Construction e-Conference 2023; Keszthely, Hungary, 20–23 June 2023; Budapest University of Technology and Economics: Keszthely, Hungary, 2023.

22. Cusumano, M.A.; Yoffie, D.B.; Gawer, A. The Future of Platforms; MIT Sloan Management Review: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 26-34.

23. De Reuver, M.; Sørensen, C.; Basole, R.C. The digital platform: A research agenda. J. Inf. Technol.; 2018; 33, pp. 124-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3]

24. Van Alstyne, M.; Parker, G. Platform Business: From Resources to Relationships. Platf. Bus.; 2017; 9, pp. 25-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/gfkmir-2017-0004]

25. Meyer, M.H.; Lehnerd, A.P. The Power of Product Platforms; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1997.

26. Robertson, D.; Ulrich, K. Planning for product platforms. Sloan Manag. Rev.; 1998; 39, pp. 19-31.

27. Zhu, F.; Furr, N. Products to platforms: Making the leap. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2016; 94, pp. 72-78.

28. Bonchek, M.; Choudary, S.P. Three elements of a successful platform strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2013; 92.

29. Van Alstyne, M.W.; Parker, G.G.; Choudary, S.P. Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2016; 94, pp. 54-62.

30. Sandberg, J.; Holmström, J.; Lyytinen, K. Digital transformation of ABB through platforms: The emergence of hybrid architecture in process automation. Digitalization Cases: How Organizations Rethink Their Business for the Digital Age; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 273-291.

31. Lessing, J.; Brege, S. Industrialized Building Companies’ Business Models: Multiple Case Study of Swedish and North American Companies. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2017; 144, 05017019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001368]

32. Lessing, J.; Brege, S. Business models for product-oriented house-building companies—Experience from two Swedish case studies. Constr. Innov.; 2015; 15, pp. 449-472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CI-02-2015-0009]

33. Li, Y.; Das, P.; Kuzmanovska, I.; Lara-Hamilton, E.; Maxwell, D.W.; Moehler, R. Business Model Innovation in the Construction Industry: Emerging Business Model Archetypes from Bathpod Modularization. J. Manag. Eng.; 2024; 40, 04023066. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-5651]

34. Bryden Wood (Construction Innovation Hub). Bridging the Gap Between Construction + Manufacturing; Construction Innovation Hub: London, UK, 2018.

35. Maxwell, D.; Aitchison, M. Design-value in the platform approach. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction; Heraklion, Greece, 9–12 July 2017; pp. 349-356.

36. Bartlett, K.; Blanco, J.L.; Fitzgerald, B.; Johnson, J.; Mullin, A.L.; Ribeirinho, M.J. Rise of the Platform Era: The Next Chapter in Construction Technology. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/private-equity-and-principal-investors/our-insights/rise-of-the-platform-era-the-next-chapter-in-construction-technology (accessed on 5 September 2021).

37. Whyte, J.; Mosca, L.; Zhou, S.A. 22. Digital project capabilities and innovation: Insights from the emerging use of platforms in construction. Handbook on Innovation and Project Management; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2023; pp. 408-422.

38. Rupnik, I.; Smith, R.E.; Schmetterer, T. Modularization Precedes Digitalization in Offsite Housing Delivery; Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022.

39. Zhou, S. Platforming for industrialized building: A comparative case study of digitally-enabled product platforms. Build. Res. Inf.; 2023; 52, pp. 4-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2023.2200157]

40. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J.; 2007; 50, pp. 25-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888]

41. Sarhan, S.; Pretlove, S.; Elghaish, F.; Matarneh, S.; Mossman, A. Sources of occupational stress in UK construction projects: An empirical investigation and agenda for future research. Smart Sustain. Built Environ.; 2024; ahead of print Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/sasbe-11-2023-0356/full/html?casa_token=xgrYOroeKXoAAAAA:TwZbm9m86IEWdxhDUxKFrfKjz1Lk7yzwVKBOb8joaBRjHzyaeZFcWt4YLX9IQNiFPcynQVEb5GjQmGJ5syLiKUVN8WUBrHVwtnu0AEam37AZfjpCtoY (accessed on 13 July 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2023-0356]

42. Matarneh, S. Construction Disputes Causes and Resolution Methods: A Case Study from a Developing Country. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries.; 2024; 29, pp. 139-161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21315/jcdc-04-23-0043]

43. Spens, K.M.; Kovács, G. A content analysis of research approaches in logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2006; 36, pp. 374-390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030610676259]

44. Royal Academy of Engineering. Philosophy of Engineering: Volume 1 of the Proceedings of a Series of Seminars Held at the Royal Academy of Engineering; Royal Academy of Engineering: London, UK, 2010.

45. Venable, J. The role of theory and theorising in design science research. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006); Claremont, CA, USA, 24–25 February 2006; pp. 1-18.

46. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1994.

47. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag.; 2004; 42, pp. 15-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002]

48. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students; 7th ed. Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2016.

49. Fichman, R.G.; Dos Santos, B.L.; Zheng, Z. Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Q.; 2014; 38, pp. 329-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.01]

50. Biswas, S.; Sen, J. A proposed architecture for big data driven supply chain analytics. arXiv; 2017; arXiv: 1705.04958

51. Tokazhanov, G.; Galiyev, O.; Lukyanenko, A.; Nauyryzbay, A.; Ismagulov, R.; Durdyev, S.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Karaca, F. Circularity assessment tool development for construction projects in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 362, 132293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132293]

52. Construction Innovation Hub (UK Research and Innovation). The Product Platform Rulebook; 1.2 ed. UK Research and Innovation: London, UK, 2023.

53. Ghafoor, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Kocaturk, T.; Weiss, M.; Barnett, M. The product-service system approach for housing in a circular economy: An integrative literature review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 403, 136845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136845]

54. Guerra, B.C.; Shahi, S.; Mollaei, A.; Skaf, N.; Weber, O.; Leite, F.; Haas, C. Circular economy applications in the construction industry: A global scan of trends and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 324, 129125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129125]

55. Hijazi, A.A.; Perera, S.; Calheiros, R.N.; Alashwal, A. Rationale for the Integration of BIM and Blockchain for the Construction Supply Chain Data Delivery: A Systematic Literature Review and Validation through Focus Group. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2021; 147, 03121005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002142]

56. Das, M.; Luo, H.; Cheng, J.C. Securing interim payments in construction projects through a blockchain-based framework. Autom. Constr.; 2020; 118, 103284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103284]

57. Elghaish, F.; Abrishami, S.; Hosseini, M.R. Integrated project delivery with blockchain: An automated financial system. Autom. Constr.; 2020; 114, 103182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103182]

58. Hamledari, H.; Fischer, M. Role of blockchain-enabled smart contracts in automating construction progress payments. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr.; 2021; 13, 04520038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000442]

59. Shivegowda, M.D.; Boonyasopon, P.; Rangappa, S.M.; Siengchin, S. A review on computer-aided design and manufacturing processes in design and architecture. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng.; 2022; 29, pp. 3973-3980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09723-w]

60. Molu, M.M.; Goertz, N. A comparison of soft-coded and hard-coded relaying. Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol.; 2014; 25, pp. 308-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ett.2562]

61. Alonso, R.; Borras, M.; Koppelaar, R.H.; Lodigiani, A.; Loscos, E.; Yöntem, E. SPHERE: BIM digital twin platform. Multidiscip. Digit. Publ. Inst. Proc.; 2019; 20, 9.

62. Woodhead, R.; Stephenson, P.; Morrey, D. Digital construction: From point solutions to IoT ecosystem. Autom. Constr.; 2018; 93, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.004]

63. Soman, R.K.; Whyte, J.K. Codification challenges for data science in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.; 2020; 146, 04020072. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001846]

64.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; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.

65. Pishdad-Bozorgi, P.; Gao, X.; Eastman, C.; Self, A.P. Planning and developing facility management-enabled building information model (FM-enabled BIM). Autom. Constr.; 2018; 87, pp. 22-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.004]