The construction industry faces growing challenges that require better decision-making frameworks. Combining Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) with digital tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers a promising way forward. Yet their integration remains fragmented across research efforts, revealing a significant gap in theory and practice. As a result, their potential remains underutilized, limiting the development of flexible, data-driven decision-making tools for complex construction projects. This study conducts a systematic bibliometric analysis to map the development and structure of the MCDM-BIM-AI connection in construction management from 2015 to 2025. Using a PRISMA-compliant protocol, we analyzed 253 peer-reviewed articles from the Scopus database. Our approach combines performance analysis with science mapping through keyword co-occurrence networks and thematic evolution analysis across three time periods: 2015-2018, 2019-2021, 2022-2025, along with a country-level co-authorship network analysis. Our findings identify five main thematic clusters and show a significant increase in publications since 2019, mainly driven by the Asia-Pacific region. The analysis highlights a notable knowledge gap in the deep connection between BIM and AI within MCDM frameworks. The temporal mapping reveals three phases of evolution: pre-integration (2015-2018), Integration (2019-2021), and Innovation (2022-present), with AI and Machine Learning becoming key focus areas in the latest phase. The study suggests promising future directions for combining MCDM, BIM, and AI to promote more sustainable, data-driven, and resilient construction practices. It proposes a conceptual outline for the Intelligent Cognitive Decision Framework (ICDF), where BIM serves as a semantic data backbone, MCDM acts as the evaluation engine, and AI provides cognitive support for flexible, data-driven decision-making in construction 4.0 applications. This intellectual mapping offers researchers data-driven guidance for prioritizing impactful investigations, practitioners with technology investment plans that match research developments, and policymakers with informed priorities for research and development investment in underrepresented regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghedjati et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: