Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Methodological study demonstrates structured intelligent system design for civil engineering workflows, highlighting improved stakeholder alignment and adaptable infrastructure digitalization.
The Double Diamond model, developed by [The British Design Council. (Citation2005). The Double Diamond-Design Council. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond (Accessed: 29 August 2024)], structures system design through two diamond-shaped phases emphasizing divergent-convergent thinking. While the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry leverages Civil Engineering 4.0 technologies like BIM, IoT, and AI for robotic construction and data-driven platforms. However, the absence of a structured design theory for intelligent systems risks inefficiencies, misaligned stakeholder objectives, and solutions lacking utility or usability. This study addresses this gap by proposing a AEC-specific methodological framework adapted from the Double Diamond model, integrated with the Future Cone model and service design principles. The framework standardizes procedures for stakeholder alignment, explicit decision-making criteria for phase-specific alternative evaluation and selection, and iterative system optimization, demonstrated through a proof-of-concept case study: a smart groundwater control system for excavation dewatering in Northeast China. By integrating agile problem-framing and AI-driven convergence cycles, the model enhances adaptability in complex AEC workflows. Its contributions include a versatile decision-support oriented design framework for developing intelligent systems within Civil Engineering 4.0 and a forward-looking scaffold for emerging Civil Engineering 5.0 applications, prioritizing human-centricity alongside technical innovation. The results underscore the framework’s capacity to bridge interdisciplinary gaps and align technical solutions with practical implementation in infrastructure digitalization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ju et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: