iv. Digital Twins as Delivery Artifacts, Not Visualizations
Why twins matter most when treated as operational records, not renderings.
Overview
Digital twins are often introduced to projects as visual tools—three-dimensional models used to communicate design intent, coordinate construction work, or demonstrate technological sophistication to stakeholders. The ability to navigate a photorealistic virtual building, explore spatial relationships, or visualize proposed modifications is undeniably valuable for certain purposes. But visualization alone is not what makes a digital twin valuable over the operational life of an asset that may span decades.
A digital twin creates lasting value only when it is treated as a delivery artifact—a structured, verifiable representation of the asset that persists beyond construction completion and supports operations, governance, and finance throughout the building's lifecycle. The distinction between visualization and verification, between impressive renderings and reliable records, determines whether digital twins become foundational infrastructure or expensive novelties that are archived and forgotten.
This guide explains why twins designed primarily for visual impact typically fail to achieve sustained adoption, what characteristics make twins durable and trustworthy, and how reframing twins as delivery artifacts rather than design tools changes what gets built and how value is realized.
The Misconception: Digital Twins as Enhanced Models
In many projects, digital twins are treated as an evolutionary step beyond Building Information Modeling (BIM)—richer geometry, better visual quality, more sophisticated rendering engines, enhanced user interfaces. The twin is positioned as "BIM plus visualization" or "BIM with real-time connections." Once construction is complete, these models are typically archived as project deliverables or maintained lightly by facility management teams who lack resources or incentives to keep them current as the building evolves.
This approach creates two predictable outcomes documented extensively in adoption research. First, the twin diverges from the physical asset as systems are tuned, components are replaced, tenant improvements modify layouts, and operational changes accumulate. The model represents what was delivered at substantial completion, not what exists six months or two years later. Second, stakeholders lose trust in its accuracy because they discover mismatches between documented conditions and physical reality during troubleshooting or planning interventions. Once trust erodes, the twin becomes a historical curiosity—something that might be consulted for general orientation but cannot be relied upon for decisions where accuracy matters.
Research on digital twin adoption in facility management consistently identifies this pattern. A 2024 study surveying construction industry professionals found that top barriers to digital twin adoption include "uncertain economic returns," "lack of integration with maintenance workflows," and "unclear ownership of update responsibility." Facility management organizations report being particularly challenged by twins that require specialized expertise to maintain or that cannot exchange data effectively with operational systems. When updating a twin requires manual effort, custom integrations, or skills not present in operations teams, the twin is inevitably sidelined in favor of simpler, more accessible tools.
The problem is not the technology's capability. Digital twin platforms have become increasingly sophisticated, offering real-time data integration, IoT connectivity, and advanced analytics. The problem is the role the twin is assigned—optimized for design coordination and visualization rather than lifecycle persistence and operational decision support.
Delivery Artifacts Must Survive Handover
A delivery artifact is something that downstream stakeholders rely on after project completion to inform operations, satisfy audits and compliance requirements, support refinancing and transaction due diligence, and enable future design and retrofit decisions. For a digital twin to function as a delivery artifact in real estate, it must be designed with these future uses explicitly in mind, not as afterthoughts addressed through post-construction adaptation.
Most digital twins fail this test because they are optimized for design coordination—clash detection, constructability review, sequencing, and quantity takeoff—rather than lifecycle persistence. The information structure prioritizes immediate delivery needs: geometric accuracy sufficient for construction, discipline coordination to prevent conflicts, specification detail adequate for procurement. What typically gets less attention is provenance (who created what information and when), traceability (how design decisions connect to construction changes and operational outcomes), context (why particular approaches were chosen over alternatives), and verification frameworks (how claims about conditions can be validated independently).
Centre for Digital Built Britain's (CDBB) Gemini Principles, developed to guide the UK's National Digital Twin Programme, directly address this gap. Published in 2018 and refined through extensive stakeholder engagement across government, industry, and academia, the Gemini Principles establish that digital twins must prioritize "purpose" (serving clear, value-creating outcomes), "trust" (ensuring information quality and security), and "function" (maintaining usefulness throughout the asset lifecycle). The principles explicitly position digital twins not as visualization tools but as components of an information management framework enabling effective collaboration and decision-making across the built environment.
Geometry Is Secondary to Structure
What makes a digital twin durable over decades is not visual fidelity but informational structure—how data is organized, related, and governed. A lifecycle-ready twin links physical components to specifications that define their performance requirements, approvals that authorize their installation, change orders that document deviations, and commissioning results that establish operational baselines. It preserves relationships between systems so that interdependencies remain clear: which HVAC zones serve which spaces, which electrical panels feed which equipment, which plumbing risers connect which floors.
It records provenance and version history so future stakeholders can determine when information was created, by whom, under what circumstances, and how it has been modified. It distinguishes verified conditions from assumptions, enabling users to assess information quality and make risk-appropriate decisions. If a component's location was field-verified during construction, that's noted. If it's inferred from design documents without confirmation, that's noted differently.
Without this structure, even the most geometrically detailed model becomes difficult to trust as actual conditions inevitably diverge from documented states. Visual accuracy—the fidelity with which a rendered model represents physical appearance—fades quickly as buildings change. Structural accuracy—the fidelity with which information relationships and provenance are maintained—compounds in value because it enables the twin to remain relevant and trustworthy despite physical changes.
ISO 19650, the international standard for information management using BIM, addresses this through concepts like the Asset Information Model (AIM), which specifically focuses on what information owners need during operations as distinct from what design and construction teams produced. The standard requires defining Asset Information Requirements (AIR) that specify exactly what information must be delivered, in what formats, with what metadata, to support lifecycle management.
Why Operations Teams Abandon Most Twins
Facilities and asset management teams often inherit digital twins that prove difficult to use in practice. Common reasons documented in adoption research include models that do not reflect as-operated conditions because tuning and modifications during commissioning were never incorporated; lack of integration with existing maintenance workflows and Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS), requiring duplicate data entry or manual correlation; unclear ownership of update responsibility—should facilities staff maintain the model, or IT, or an external consultant?; and missing context around design and construction decisions that would help interpret why systems are configured as they are.
When updating a twin requires specialized BIM expertise not present in facilities departments, when the twin cannot directly inform work order generation or spare parts ordering, when the cost and effort of maintenance exceeds perceived value, the twin is sidelined. Operations teams revert to separate systems—spreadsheets for equipment lists, disconnected databases for maintenance histories, ad hoc drawings for spatial planning—that are less sophisticated but more aligned with their workflows and capabilities.
This failure mode is not about technology limitations. It reflects a fundamental mismatch between what twins are designed to do (support design coordination and construction visualization) and what operations needs (reliable, accessible equipment data integrated with maintenance and financial systems). A delivery artifact must reduce operational effort, not add to it. If maintaining accuracy requires more work than the value it creates, abandonment is rational.
Designing Twins for Change, Not Completion
Assets change immediately after delivery and continue changing throughout their operational lives. Systems are tuned based on actual occupancy patterns rather than design assumptions. Control setpoints are adjusted to balance comfort, equipment protection, and energy efficiency. Components are replaced when initial selections prove inadequate or fail during warranty periods. Uses evolve as tenants change or buildings are repurposed.
Digital twins that assume project completion as an endpoint fail almost immediately because they cannot accommodate this inevitable evolution. Delivery-oriented twins are designed differently, with explicit accommodation for change. They accept updates as part of normal operations rather than treating modifications as exceptions requiring special procedures. They preserve traceability across changes so the history of modifications is visible—what was changed, when, by whom, for what purpose. They maintain alignment between physical and digital states through defined update protocols that specify how changes get recorded and validated.
This does not require real-time synchronization, which is often impractical and unnecessarily expensive for building assets that don't change minute-to-minute. It requires clear, enforceable rules for how changes are documented and incorporated—rules that are realistic given operational resources and incentives. If a major system replacement occurs, the twin is updated. If controls are reprogrammed, the changes are logged. If tenant improvements modify layouts, the model reflects new conditions. These updates need not be instantaneous, but they must be reliable and auditable.
Digital Twins and Verification
One of the most overlooked functions of digital twins is verification—the ability to confirm claims about asset conditions independently rather than accepting representations on faith. When structured properly, a twin allows stakeholders to verify what was built against what was approved during regulatory reviews or contractual negotiations; confirm system configurations during compliance audits without requiring extensive field investigation; and reconcile operational data with asset records to validate performance claims or diagnose discrepancies.
This capability reduces reliance on manual inspections and bespoke documentation exercises that consume time and resources. An appraiser can verify square footage calculations against a trusted model rather than commissioning new surveys. A lender can confirm equipment ages and replacement dates from linked maintenance records rather than relying solely on borrower representations. An inspector can check system capacities against design specifications without reconstructing information from archived drawings.
Verification is where digital twins move from convenience to institutional relevance. The difference between "nice to have better visualizations" and "essential for reducing transaction friction and compliance costs" is the twin's ability to support verification independently. CDBB's research on the National Digital Twin emphasized this repeatedly: the value of connected digital twins lies not in their visual sophistication but in their role as "a secure shared information infrastructure" enabling participants to make better decisions based on trusted data.
Financial and Governance Implications
From a financial perspective, twins treated as delivery artifacts provide measurable benefits. They reduce due diligence timelines during refinancing or sales transactions because information needed for valuation and underwriting is readily accessible, structured, and verifiable. They support more confident underwriting by reducing informational uncertainty that lenders must price into risk premiums. They lower transaction costs by eliminating duplicate investigations of conditions that should already be documented.
From a governance perspective, delivery-artifact twins clarify responsibility by making asset ownership, maintenance obligations, and modification authority explicit and traceable. They support continuous compliance monitoring rather than periodic audits by enabling automated checking of conditions against requirements. They enable transparency across stakeholders—owners, operators, lenders, regulators, insurers—without requiring each party to maintain separate representations or conduct redundant verifications.
These outcomes depend fundamentally on trust. Trust that the twin accurately represents current conditions, that information has been maintained rigorously, that claims can be independently verified. Trust depends on continuity—sustained governance ensuring the twin remains current and reliable despite inevitable organizational changes, technology migrations, and shifting priorities.
Research on digital twin challenges identifies "lack of business models" and "unclear value propositions" as major barriers to adoption. When twins are positioned as visualization tools, the business case struggles because visualization alone doesn't justify ongoing maintenance costs. When twins are positioned as delivery artifacts essential for verification, compliance, and transaction support, the value proposition becomes clear and quantifiable.
Why Most Digital Twin Initiatives Underperform
Industry surveys consistently show high interest in digital twins but limited sustained adoption, particularly in facility management contexts. A comprehensive 2024 literature review on digital twin adoption in construction identified that "adoption remains nascent, hindered by underexplored barriers and lack of practical strategies." A parallel study on facility management readiness found "fragmented adoption" with digital twins "still in infancy" despite recognized potential benefits.
The underlying reason is not cost—though implementation expenses are significant—or technical capability, which has advanced considerably. The reason is misalignment between what twins are built to do and what assets require over time. When twins are positioned as visualization tools or enhanced BIM models, they are evaluated as software products—judged on feature completeness, interface quality, and rendering performance. This evaluation framework emphasizes capabilities valuable during design and construction but less relevant during the decades of operational life that follow.
When twins are positioned as delivery artifacts, they are evaluated as infrastructure—critical systems that must be reliable, maintainable, and continuously valuable. This evaluation framework emphasizes governance (can we maintain accuracy?), interoperability (does it integrate with operational systems?), and return on investment (do ongoing costs justify ongoing benefits?). Only the infrastructure framing survives long-term scrutiny because only infrastructure-class systems justify the sustained investment required to maintain digital twins effectively.
Why This Guide Matters
Digital twins represent one of the few practical opportunities to preserve asset knowledge across lifecycle transitions—from design to construction, construction to operations, and operations back to future design when renovations become necessary. This opportunity is wasted when twins are treated as visualization tools that impress during delivery but lose relevance soon after.
When treated as delivery artifacts, digital twins become foundational infrastructure enabling continuity, governance, and long-term value preservation. They provide the informational substrate that makes assets legible to current stakeholders and future owners, that supports verification without requiring repeated investigation, that enables maintenance teams to work from reliable records rather than assumptions.
The difference between these outcomes is not technical sophistication—visualization-focused twins often employ more advanced rendering than verification-focused twins. The difference is intent: what purpose the twin serves, what lifecycle phase it prioritizes, how governance ensures continued relevance. When intent aligns with operational reality and governance sustains accuracy, digital twins deliver on their promise. When intent prioritizes visual impact over structural reliability, twins become expensive artifacts filed alongside other project deliverables and rarely accessed again.
Keywords: Digital twins, asset information model, BIM-to-FM, Gemini Principles, lifecycle data management, facility management integration, verification infrastructure, operational readiness
References
Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB). "Gemini Principles" (2018) - Values to guide National Digital Twin development emphasizing purpose, trust, and function
Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB). "National Digital Twin Programme" - Information Management Framework for connected digital twins
ISO 19650-3:2020 - Information management during operational phase using BIM, Asset Information Requirements
ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (2024). "Building on Digital Twin: Overcoming Barriers and Unlocking Success" - Survey identifying top adoption barriers
Automation in Construction (2024). "Digital twins in the built environment: Definition, applications, and challenges" - Comprehensive review of DT adoption challenges
Facilities Journal (2025). "Shaping the future of facility management: Market and literature insights on digital twin adoption" - FM readiness assessment showing fragmented adoption
Buildings MDPI (2023). "Barriers to the Adoption of Digital Twin in the Construction Industry" - Systematic review identifying key barriers including cost, integration, and unclear ownership
Last updated