Purpose Limited empirical evidence exists on the adoption potential, expected implementation timeline and measures required to support bio-digital integration in developing-country construction contexts. This study aims to examine expert perspectives on these dimensions within the South African construction industry. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory modified Delphi approach was adopted with 12 built environment experts. Adoption potential and expected timelines were assessed using categorical scales and descriptive statistics. Fifteen implementation measures were evaluated using a ten-point Likert scale and reassessed in a second round following controlled feedback. Consensus was assessed using median, interquartile deviation and percentage agreement, with mean and standard deviation additionally reported for Round 2. Findings The expert panel indicated moderate adoption potential and predominantly anticipated adoption within 6–10 years and beyond. Regulatory frameworks, circular economy principles and workforce training were among the most highly rated implementation measures. However, consistently high ratings across all measures indicate limited differentiation between their relative importance. A structured adoption pathway is proposed to support implementation. Research limitations/implications The findings reflect the perspectives of a small, predominantly academically affiliated expert panel and should not be interpreted as representative of the South African construction industry. Practical implications The findings provide context-specific guidance for policymakers, industry stakeholders and researchers on policy development, capacity building and innovation investment. Originality/value The study provides context-specific empirical evidence on expert assessments of bio-digital integration in South Africa by jointly examining adoption potential, anticipated timelines and highly rated implementation measures within a single framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bello et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: