HBIM for Built Heritage: A Cyclical Interdependence Model of Technical, Organizational, and Interpretive Challenges

HBIM for Built Heritage: A Cyclical Interdependence Model of Technical, Organizational, and Interpretive Challenges

Mahmoud Faisal Rizk

PhD. Candidate, Arch. Dept., Faculty of Fine Arts Helwan Universit, Cairo, Egypt

Haby Hosney Mostafa

Arch. Dept., Faculty of Fine Arts, Helwan University Cairo, Egypt

Abstract – The digital documentation of built heritage is critical for preserving cultural values. Despite advancements in technologies like HBIM and laser scanning, a significant gap remains between the high-level ethical principles of international charters (e.g., The London Charter, Seville Principles) and practical implementation. While existing literature has extensively identified individual barriers, this study argues that these challenges cannot be addressed in isolation.

Through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of works published between 2010 and 2025, this paper moves beyond simple classification to propose a Cyclical Interdependence Model. This model demonstrates that organizational deficits (e.g., lack of resources) directly dictate technical limitations (e.g., data simplification), which in turn force interpretive compromises that threaten the authenticity of the digital record. The study concludes that effective HBIM implementation requires breaking this cycle through integrated strategies rather than isolated technical solutions. This framework provides a novel analytical basis for operationalizing conservation charters in digital workflows

Keywords HBIM; Digital Heritage; International Charters; Digital Preservation; Conservation Planning; Cyclical Interdependence

1. INTRODUCTION

   The systematic documentation of built heritage is an important endeavor for preserving and transmitting cultural heritage to future generations, serving as a comprehensive record of human history and identity. However, this complicated process is fraught with numerous challenges and limitations, spanning technical complexities, organizational constraints, and interpretive dilemmas. Each cultural heritage asset or site has unique characteristics, making every documentation project distinct and often challenging.

   1. Background and Rationale

      Although advanced digital technologies like laser scanning, photogrammetry and HBIM provide us with unprecedented possibilities, their current applied state in heritage contexts is only partially aligned with several international principles, including the Nara Document, the London Charter and the Seville Principles. This gap between technological capability and conservation philosophy emphasizes the need for a critical analysis of why these disconnects persist.

      The impetus to conduct this study stems from a need to bridge these domains: not merely to survey peer-reviewed studies, but to dissect the interdependent relationship between organizational constraints and technical limitations, and to align these challenges with principles of conservation. This approach aims to inform more standardized and ethically grounded practices for digital documentation.

   2. Research Aim and Objectives

      Unlike previous studies that primarily catalogue challenges, the primary aim of this research is to analyze the causal relationships between the technical, organizational, and interpretive domains of heritage documentation. Specifically, the objectives are:

      1. To identify the recurrent barriers in HBIM workflows based on recent literature.
      2. To develop a Conceptual Framework that illustrates the cyclical interdependence of these barriers (Figure 6).
      3. To demonstrate how this interdependence hinders the practical application of international conservation charters, specifically regarding the principles of transparency and authenticity.
   3. Research Questions

      This study addresses the following central question:

      How does the failure in organizational readiness create a cascade of technical and interpretive limitations in Heritage BIM?

      Sub-questions include:

      • What are the specific technical, organizational, and interpretive challenges identified in peer-reviewed literature?
      • How do these domains influence each other in a cyclical manner?
   4. Scope and Limitations

      The study is methodological and conceptual in nature. It applies a systematic literature review with qualitative synthesis to analyze the challenges rather than the development of a specific technological implementation. While references to specific technologies (e.g., HBIM) and methods (e.g., laser scanning, photogrammetry) are included, the research does not provide practical case study applications. Instead, its contribution lies in offering a structured framework for understanding the multi-dimensional challenges of heritage documentation.

   5. Methodological Approach

   This study is a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) conducted to identify and synthesize published evidence on challenges, and limitations in Digital Heritage Documentation, Heritage Building Information Modeling (HBIM) and digital heritage preservation. A comprehensive search was conducted for all studies in the Scopus and Crossref database with the search string:

   (“Digital heritage” OR “Heritage Building Information Modeling” OR “HBIM” OR “Historic BIM”) AND (challenge OR limitation OR barrier OR problem)

   The search was limited to the period 20102025. Identification of records for full-text assessment was done through a multi- stage screening process with title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment for eligibility. Studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1) were eligible. Data was extracted from included studies and synthesized qualitatively to identify recurrent challenges, methodological gaps, practical lessons learned, and avenues for future research. The review process adhered to systematic- review best practices to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

   ‌Table 1 – Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

   Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
   Publication Type	Peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings	Non-peer-reviewed sources, editorials, opinion pieces, theses, reports, or grey literature
   Language	Studies published in English	Studies published in languages other than English
   Time Frame	20102025	Studies published before 2010
   Subject Focus	Studies addressing digital heritage documentation, HBIM, Historic BIM, or related workflows	Studies not related to cultural heritage documentation or BIM-based approaches
   Thematic Focus	Explicit discussion of challenges, limitations, barriers, or problems in heritage documentation	Studies focusing only on technical descriptions without addressing challenges or limitations
   Relevance	Empirical studies, theoretical analyses, and methodological papers contributing to knowledge	Studies with no substantive contribution to heritage documentation or without clear relevance

2. DEFINITIONS AND OVERVIEW
   1. Digital Cultural Heritage

      Digital Heritage is broadly defined as our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations when transmitted into electronic form or originally created digitally [1]. This includes a wide range of materials such as texts, databases, images, audio, graphics, software, and web pages [2, 3]. UNESCO recognizes these digital contents as heritage with lasting value and significance that must be preserved [2].

   2. Documentation in Heritage Conservation

   Documentation defined as the process of systematically collecting and preserving the tangible and intangible components of a historic structure or environment. It is to supply the information needed to conserve, monitor, and maintain cultural assets over their lifetime. According to [4] Heritage documentation defined as the systematic collection and archiving of tangible and intangible elements of historic structures and environments. Its purpose is to supply accurate information that will enable correct conservation, monitoring and maintenance for the survival of an artefact.. Documentation is the first phase for heritage buildings analysis, conservation, retrofitting, renovations and management. It can incorporate both quantitative assets (geo- metric data, performance data) and qualitative assets (historic photographs, oral histories, music) [5]. Acquisition of all possible data is the first step to contribute towards fundamental modelling for building recording and documentation [6].

   incorporating scholarly judgment, historical context, and intangible cultural values.

3. Challenges in Documentation

   Documenting built heritage presents a multitude of challenges, stemming from the inherent complexities of historic structures, technological limitations, organizational issues, and the dynamic nature of heritage itself.

   The chart below (Figure 1) outlines the key challenges in documenting historic buildings. It categorizes them into technical, organizational, and interpretive and ethical challenges, detailing specific issues within each category:

   ‌Figure 1 – The key challenges in documenting historic buildings

   1. Technical Challenges:
      1. Complexity and Irregularity of Historic Buildings

         Historic buildings are characterized by complex and varied shapes, often not conforming to classical geometrical laws. Walls may not always be vertical, and elements like capitals have specific and diverse architectural styles. Their complexity and deterioration over time make modeling difficult [7].

         They often feature irregular and complex components and singularities due to architectonic style, traditional construction, and renovations [8, 9].

         Unlike modern buildings, heritage structures have unique architectural elements that require individual modeling, such as walls, structures, windows, and doors [10].

         The lack of regularity in historic masonry structures historically led to ad hoc, approximate work measurement methods [3].

         It is sometimes impossible to define a clear Level of Detail (LoD) during the initial agreement between a BIM developer and a customer for historic buildings, meaning models may consist of elements with different LoDs. Complexity of modeling irregular geometries and dealing with incomplete data [11].

      2. Limitations of Current Digital Technologies and Workflows

         Despite rapid developments in digital documentation, there are still limitations in existing technology and working processes. These issues all have a direct impact on the accuracy, accessibility, and durability of the HBIM models, which hold back reliable heritage preservation and management to a large extent.

         Scan-to-BIM remains complex and labor-intensive. While recent research into AI-assisted reconstruction [12],[13] has shown potential, these approaches are not yet standardized or widely adopted, highlighting the continued need for structured frameworks like the one proposed in this study.

         The following graph (Figure 2) illustrates the multi-layered challenges of digital heritage workflows, with aspects related to data capture, data processing, software constraints, and long-term management, all of this brought to the forefront by site-based issues.

         ‌Figure 2 – Limitations of Current Digital Technologies

      3. Data Acquisition Issues
         • Low spatial resolution of thermal images can hinder proper reconstruction of surveyed structures’ geometry [Thermal Imaging]. Radiometric characteristics can make direct use of Structure-from-Motion (SfM) challenging [Thermal Imaging].
         • Laser scanning and photogrammetry have line-of-sight limitations, meaning they can only obtain surface 3D data and cannot “see through” objects or acquire data from inner parts [14].
         • Low spatial resolution of images is a constraint for detailed documentation.
      4. Data Processing & Modeling

         While 3D surveying technologies have been probed for years, data, even if collected in 3D, is often still delivered as 2D drawings. This is partly due to limited understanding of point cloud data [15]. According to J. R. Cembranos, the following factor drove this at the time:

         • Pure restoration remains a major consideration for ensuring heritage sustainability.
         • Limited understanding of point cloud data (3D surveying output) and the capability to handle large data sets.
         • Stakeholders ability and familiarity working with as- built parametric models.
         • Software capabilities to deal with point clouds and models simultaneously.
         • The transition from survey operations to 3D model generation and the complexity of categorizing constructive elements for creating smart object libraries are noted difficulties.
         • Modeling and parameterization of single architectural elements are challenging due to uniqueness, handmade production, degradation, and irregular shapes [9].
         • The “scan-to-BIM” process is complex and labor- intensive, hindering the widespread utilization of HBIM [16].
         • There is a technical gap in managing massive datasets from laser scanners during geometrical modeling, leading to potential information loss due to data exchange standards or software implementation errors [17].
         • Automating HBIM reconstruction for heritage buildings is challenging due to their geometrical complexity and irregularity, as most techniques are applied to modern buildings [8].

           While recent technologies alleviate data acquisition, a new restriction is the lack of effective and efficient means to extract valuable information from large quantities of data. Manual analysis is time-consuming, expensive, prone to subjectivity, and not repeatable [14].

      5. Software & BIM Tools
         • The high cost of BIM applications, errors in the system, and training time are technical challenges [10].
         • Compatibility issues can arise with files and computer platforms [10].
         • Most Current BIM applications are mostly built for designing new and contemporary buildings and are not well-suited for historic buildings due to their asymmetric and irregular elements (e.g., fixed wall thickness) [16]. There is a lack of pre-made libraries of historic building elements [9].
      6. Management & Interoperability</p
         • Interoperability issues persist between different institutions, disciplines, and national information systems. There is a lack of data standards for conservation information [18].
         • Creating a digital archive of a nation’s cultural heritage is considered one of the biggest challenges for smaller institutions, often due to lack of knowledge and resources for their systems [19].
         • Long-term management of digital content is non-trivial and time-consuming due to rapid technology churn, built-in obsolescence, and interdependence between software, operating systems, and hardware. Neglecting digital content risks loss of functionality or complete inaccessibility [20].

           In conclusion, the following table (Table 2) illustrates a summary of all HBIM-relevant standards and their respective

           relevance, providing a clear overview for reference in the context of heritage documentation challenges and its impact on HBIM.

           ‌Table 2 – Summary of the key challenges encountered during the digital documentation of heritage sites, categorized by process, cause, and impact.

           Category	Challenge	Cause /Limitation	Impact on Heritage Documentation
           Data Acquisition	Low- resolution thermal images	Thermal cameras have limited spatial resolution & radiometric constraints	Inaccurate reconstruction of geometry
           	Line-of-sight restriction	Laser scanning & photogrammetry cannot capture hidden/inner parts	Incomplete 3D models
           	Low image resolution	Limited detail in captured photos	Loss of fine documentation accuracy
           Data Processing & Modeling	3D data reduced to 2D	Limited understanding of point clouds	Heritage documentation simplified, losing detail
           	Skill gap	Stakeholders lack expertise with massive datasets/as-built models	Inefficient model use
           	Complex Scan-to-BIM	Labor-intensive, time- consuming	Limited adoption of HBIM
           	Irregular heritage elements	Handmade/degraded features resist parametrization	Difficulty in modeling authenticity
           	Data exchange errors	Standards/software limitations	Information loss
           	Lack of automation	Automated workflows designed for modern buildings	Heritage modeling inefficiency
           	Manual data analysis	Time-consuming, costly, subjective (Valero et al., 2017)	Limited reproducibility
           Software & BIM Tools	High cost & training	Expensive licenses & steep learning curve	Barriers for adoption
           	Compatibility issues	Platform/file mismatches	Disruption in workflows
           	Not suited for heritage	Designed for modern buildings, lack of historic libraries (Scianna et al., 2018)	Limited accuracy in HBIM
           Management & Interoperability	Lack of standards	Poor integration across institutions	Fragmented documentation
           	Limited resources	Small institutions lack expertise.	Difficulty creating digital archives

           Category	Challenge	Cause /Limitation	Impact on Heritage Documentation
           	Digital preservation risks	Software/hardware obsolescence	Potential inaccessibility of archives

      7. Data Management and Longevity

         Digital preservation of migrant cultural heritage faces challenges due to massive population shifts and museums limited financial capacity to house diverse collections.

         The flank of databases with appropriate representation is a challenge necessary to improve the functionality of digital systems.

         The huge number of photographic images (both archived and newly created) make it harder to include them in traditional heritage preservation and presentation.

         Spree accumulation of data can lead to “information bulimia,” where archiving everything potentially means having nothing. Daily choices are needed on what data to back up.

         Digital preservation of data and information is one of the most significant challenges, especially for smaller institutions.

         Long-term availability and preservation of digital content are crucial issues.

         These challenges highlight the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, standardized approaches, and continued technological development specifically tailored to the unique requirements of built heritage documentation and conservation.

   2. Organizational Challenges
      1. Lack of Comprehensive and Reliable Existing Data
         • A significant challenge is the lack of a detailed census archive from survey analyses that provides precise information on the quantity and quality of monuments and their environment [21].
         • Often, the original construction drawings for historic buildings are missing [22].
         • Many traditional surveying techniques previously employed could provide unreliable information, take a long time, and often lack completeness [10].
         • Information about building materials, their properties, and installations is sometimes difficult to gather. Accurate as-built drawings require advanced, complex, usually expensive, and time-consuming surveying and modeling techniques [16].
         • Huge collections of ancient literature are often unorganized, making them challenging to access and posing further recognition and organization difficulties as they age [23].
      2. Organizational and Human Resource Deficiencies
         • The cost of utilizing new methods and technology, as well as training, are significant organizational challenges.
         • Shortage of data scientists capable of fully embracing heritage goals, values, and ethics.
         • Lack of qualified staff is a problem for digitization in many institutions.
         • Insufficient funding and personnel shortages jeopardize documentation efforts.
         • Lack of awareness of the value of built heritage among the public and authorities hinders ongoing maintenance programs and preservation efforts.
         • There is a long-term steady attrition of specialist conservation skills and craft knowledge among building professionals.
         • Many tools are developed for expert users, creating usability issues for those with less advanced ICT skills.
      3. Site-Specific and Environmental Issues:
         • Complicated historic sites can affect survey duration and accuracy.
         • Access and permission issues can arise when attempting to record historical sites, increasing project costs.
         • Narrow boardwalks and unreachable areas in historic sites make documentation difficult process [24]
         • Ensuring a stable and accessible power suppy for equipment and lighting is a challenge in cave-temple complexes.
         • Lighting conditions (e.g., heat from lights, ever-changing weather) are major obstacles in proper documentation, requiring manual adjustments for color management.
         • Obstacles deployed at cave entrances and security devices (e.g., surveillance cameras, steel cages) can impede documentation.
         • Damage caused through repair and maintenance activities, such as the application of shotcrete reinforcement at the Maijishan historical site. [24].
         • Physical inaccessibility and danger to access make modeling appropriate when the actual building or artifact is inaccessible.
   3. Interpretive and Ethical Challenges
      1. Conceptual and Interpretive Ambiguities
         • HBIM must account for what is not fully visible or accessible, including previous destruction, reconstruction, or concealment.
         • The “original condition” of a historic building is problematic; buildings accrue cultural value, stories, and associations over time that may become more significant than the built fabric.
         • Authenticity is a plural and elastic concept; a definitive state for a heritage site may never exist, only a tentative beginning upon which layers of understanding are applied. HBIM needs to acknowledge ambiguity, uncertainty, interpretation, and conflict.
         • Recording involves understanding and interpreting the building and attributing value, not just factual ascertainment.
         • It is crucial to capture the “sedimentary character” of a time-based composition (accumulated layers of change) rather than an “igneous quality” of sudden completeness in a BIM model.
         • There is a risk that geometric simplifications in automated approaches for HBIM (e.g., for energy

           analysis) may be seen as denying the history of the artifact over time, including dimensional distortions from aging and settlement.

      2. Ethical and Legal Considerations

         While digital technologies offer powerful opportunities for documenting and sharing cultural heritage, their use introduces complex challenges that transcend technical concerns. These issues encompass unresolved legal questions of intellectual property and ownership (Anderson, 2010), risks related to data security, and the critical need for long-term preservation strategies to combat digital obsolescence (UNESCO, 2003). Furthermore, significant ethical considerations arise because digital models are not objective copies but rather interpretations. This raises crucial debates about authenticity, the potential for biased representation, and the responsible communication of cultural values (Cameron & Kenderdine, 2007). The following chart (Figure 3) illustrates the main four Ethical and legal considerations in digital heritage management.

         ‌Figure 3 – Main Ethical and legal considerations in digital heritage management.

         • Important questions arise regarding the ownership and intellectual property rights of digital heritage models. When multiple entities collaborate, determining authorship and reuse rights becomes complex [25].
         • There are emerging concerns about data security and privacy in digital heritage management [26].
         • Ensuring the long-term preservation and accessibility of digital heritage models is crucial, as digital technologies have short lifespans and rapidly become obsolete, posing a risk of losing valuable documented data [27].
         • The process also involves ethical considerations around authenticity, interpretation, and representation. Digital models are interpretations and not always objective representations, leading to debates about how to accurately capture intangible cultural values, avoid biased narratives, or address colonial legacies in heritage presentations.
4. SYNTHESIS AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

   The digital documentation of built heritage is a multifaceted process where technical, organizational, and interpretive challenges are not separate issues but are deeply interrelated in a cyclical and interdependent relationship [28]. Effective documentation demands a holistic approach, as a failure in one area always compromises the others, ultimately affecting the scientific validity, usability, and long-term sustainability of the digital assets produced [29].

   1. Organizational Foundations and Their Technical Consequences

      Organizational challenges often form the foundation upon which technical capabilities are built. The successful

      implementation of digital documentation is heavily dependent on resources, interdisciplinary collaboration, and clear institutional strategies [30].

      1. Resource Allocation

         The availability of funding and skilled personnel directly dictates the technical approach. Limited budgets often force institutions to opt for lower-cost techniques like photogrammetry over more precise but expensive methods like laser scanning, which can impact the geometric accuracy and level of detail of the final model [31]. A lack of investment in training and specialized staff can lead to the improper use of complex hardware and software, resulting in poor-quality data and unreliable models [10].

      2. Interdisciplinary Collaboration

         Digital heritage projects require collaboration between diverse experts, including archaeologists, architects, engineers, and computer scientists [32]. Organizational failure to foster this collaboration and establish a common language and methodology leads to significant technical problems, such as a lack of interoperability between different software and data formats used by separate teams. This creates data silos and hinders the integration of heterogeneous information into a cohesive model [33].

      3. Strategic Planning

         The absence of clear institutional strategies for digitization results in ad-hoc projects that lack standardized workflows [32]. This organizational oversight translates into technical inconsistencies in data acquisition, processing, and documentation, creating digital assets that are difficult to compare, reuse, or preserve in the long term [34].

   2. The Influence of Technical Constraints on Interpretation

      The technical choices made often dictated by organizational capacity profoundly shape the interpretive potential of a digital model. The tools and workflows are not neutral; they impose limitations and introduce biases that influence how heritage is understood and represented [35].

      1. Data Quality and Interpretation

         The quality of the acquired data directly impacts the depth of possible analysis. High-resolution 3D data can reveal fine surface details, enabling specialized studies like traceology (the study of tool marks), whereas low-resolution data limits interpretation to broader morphological features .[36] Technical limitations, such as the inability to capture reflective or transparent materials, can lead to incomplete models and flawed interpretations [37].

      2. Processing as an Interpretive Act

         The technical process of converting raw data, such as point clouds, into structured models like Heritage Building Information Models (HBIM) is inherently interpretive. It often requires simplification and abstraction, where decisions about which details to retain or discard fundamentally shape the final “intelligible” representation. Figue 4 provides a comparative overview of forward and backward modeling approaches within the SCAN-to-BIM framework, highlighting their key

         steps and methodological differences [38]. Automated algorithms, while technically efficient, can introduce their own biases and must be critically overseen by experts to avoid misinterpretations [14].

         ‌Figure 4 – Forward modeling vs backward modeling [38]

      3. Visualization and Authenticity

         The technical methods used for visualization affect how the final model is perceived. Photorealistic renderings can create a misleading “aura of authenticity” that obscures the hypothetical and interpretive nature of the reconstruction, leading audiences to mistake a reasonable hypothesis for a factual truth [39]. This highlights the interpretive challenge of visually communicating uncertainty, which in turn drives the need for new technical solutions like non-photorealistic rendering [40]. According to the London Charter [41], non- photorealistic rendering (NPR) can serve as an effective means of visually distinguishing between evidence-based elements and hypothetical reconstructions in cultural heritage visualization.

   3. Interpretive Needs Driving Technical and Organizational Requirements

      The relationship is not unidirectional; interpretive goals and principles of scientific rigor also drive technical innovation and shape organizational structures.

      1. Defining Technical Needs

         The research questions and interpretive goals of a project determine its technical requirements. For instance, a structural analysis necessitates high geometric accuracy and thus specific data acquisition methods [38], whereas a model for public engagement may prioritize interactivity and visual realism [42]. A failure to clearly define interpretive objectives at the outset often leads to the selection of inappropriate and inefficient technical workflows [32].

      2. The Demand for Paradata

         The interpretive principle of scientific transparency the need to document the “why” and “how” of a digital reconstruction creates a direct technical challenge: the need for systems to

         capture, manage, and link this information, known as paradata [29]. Paradata is the crucial record of the decision-making process, sources used, and methodologies applied [25, 43]. The lack of standardized tools for this purpose is a significant technical gap driven by an interpretive need.

      3. Shaping Organizational Practice

         The demand for interpretive transparency, as formalized in guidelines like the London Charter, creates an organizational imperative [44]. Institutions, and governmental organizations must adopt workflows, allocate resources, and provide training to ensure that paradata is systematically recorded [45]. This links the interpretive goal of rigor directly to organizational policy and project management. Similarly, the growing interpretive emphasis on inclusive, multivocal narratives of

         Challenge Domain

         Organizational

         Technical

         Causes

         Lack of funding and skilled personnel leads to inefficient project planning and resource allocation.

         Current tools and workflows are ill-suited for the geometric irregularities of historic buildings, forcing simplifications and data loss.

         Impact on Other Domains

         Constrains technical choices (e.g., opting for lower-cost, less precise methods), leading to data quality issues that limit the scope of analysis.

         Shapes the interpretive outcome, risking the misrepresentation of authenticity and obscuring the unique, aged characteristics of the heritage asset.

         heritage drives

         organizations to adopt participatory models

         Interpretive

         The principles of

         Creates specific technical

         like crowdsourcing and co-creation, which require their own specific technical and organizational frameworks [46].

   4. Conceptual Integration

      Figure 5 illustrates cyclical interdependence among the organizational, technical, and interpretive domains. Organizational foundations such as resource allocation and collaboration determine the feasibility of data acquisition,

      authenticity and transparency (as outlined in charters) demand that digital models communicate uncertainty and the process of their creation.

5. Conclusion

   requirements for systems that can capture paradata and manage complex, non- parametric geometries. Drives organizational need for new policies, training, and funding.

   while technical choices directly shape the quality and authenticity of representation. At the same time, interpretive needs, particularly transparency and research goals, drive both technical requirements and organizational strategies. This triadic relationship highlights that challenges in documentation cannot be addressed in isolation but require integrated, system-wide solutions.

   The conclusion of this study posits that the effective documentation and preservation of built heritage are impeded by a complex, multi-layered set of challenges that are not isolated but rather form a cyclically interdependent relationship across three main domains:

   technical, organizational, and interpretive., the findings emphasize that overcoming the limitations in digital heritage

   documentation requires more than just technological

   refinement. It demands a concerted effort towards

   interdisciplinary collaboration, global standardization, and the operationalization of ethical conservation principles within digital workflows to ensure that HBIM serves as a robust, scientifically valid, and sustainable tool for cultural heritage stewardship.

   1. Summary of key findings

      The documentation of the heritage built is addressed by multi- layered challenges, varied from technical and organizational

      and conceptual levels. Data collection, post processing

      workflows, and software limitations are the limiting factors in terms of reliability on the technological side for HBIM models. Organizational constraints, such as lack of resources, skills and training (especially in smaller organizations) prevent

      the implementation of more advanced technologies. Site

      ‌Figure 5 – The interdependence between organizational, technical, and interpretive domains in digital heritage documentation, illustrating their cyclical and mutually reinforcing nature.

      The following table (Table 3) visually summarizes the cyclical interdependence between the three challenge domains, providing a clear overview of the interdependence of

      challenge domains.

      limitations such as accessibility, lighting, and safety conditions further complicate consistent documentation. Beyond these practical obstacles, interpretative uncertainties, ethical dilemmas, and legal ambiguities reflect the dynamic and contested nature of heritage itself. Finally, the long-term preservation and management of digital information remain unresolved, that faces the challenge of obsolescence,

      ‌Table 3 – Summary of the cyclical interdependence between the three challenge domains

      proliferation and lack of standardization. Taken together, the results of this study emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary interaction, digital user-centred resources and

      Challenge Domain

      Causes Impact on Other Domains

      global standardization between nations

      for the effective

      application of HBIM in support to sustainable heritage preservation.

      1. key findings
         • • Technical workflows and software remain insufficiently adapted to the complexities of historic structures.
           • Resource lack and skills gaps restrict institutional capacity, especially in small organizations.

           <lidata-list-text=””>

         Site conditions (e.g., accessibility, lighting, safety) significantly affect data quality.

      2. Interpretive and ethical uncertainties challenge the notions of authenticity and representation in HBIM.
      3. Long-term digital preservation faces unresolved risks of obsolescence and data overload.
      4. Effective HBIM implementation requires globally shared standards and multidisciplinary collaboration.
6. Recommendations

   The study highlights that effective digital documentation of built heritage requires an integrated approach addressing technical, organizational, and interpretive domains simultaneously. Based on the findings, three key directions are proposed:

7. Technical Recommendations

   Future development should prioritize open-source, heritage- specific HBIM tools capable of handling irregular geometries and embedding paradata management in line with international charters. Advancing semi-automated workflows and ensuring interoperability through open standards (e.g., IFC, CIDOC CRM) are essential for long-term usability.

8. Organizational Recommendations

   Capacity building through cross-disciplinary training is crucial to overcome skill shortages and foster collaboration among architects, conservators, and digital experts. Sustainable funding models must shift from short-term projects to long- term stewardship, while standardized workflows should be adopted internationally to enhance cooperation and knowledge exchange.

9. Interpretive and Ethical Recommendations

   Clear guidelines for authenticity and transparency in digital heritage must be formalized, extending existing charters into enforceable practice. The systematic use of paradata repositories and visualization strategies – such as non- photorealistic rendering (NPR) – can mitigate misrepresentation and communicate uncertainty. Embedding participatory approaches ensures that digital models reflect diverse perspectives and multivocal narratives.

   Collectively, these recommendations outline a pathway toward a holistic model for digital heritage documentation that is technically robust, organizationally sustainable, and ethically grounded.

   The following table (Table 4) provides a concise, actionable roadmap for implementing these recommendations.

   ‌Table 4 – Actionable roadmap for implementing the study recommendations.

   Challenge Domain	Specific Problem	Proposed Solution	Stakeholders Involved
   Technical	Current HBIM software is not suited for heritage structures, and interoperability is a significant issue.	Develop open- source, purpose- built HBIM tools and data standards that can handle irregular geometries and support paradata.	Software developers, academic researchers, cultural institutions, standards bodies.
   Organizational	Lack of funding and skilled personnel prevents effective digital documentation and long-term preservation.	Create dedicated, cross-disciplinary training programs and establish new funding models that account for the full lifecycle of digital assets.	Governments, universities, cultural institutions, private funders.
   Interpretive	Digital models risk misrepresenting authenticity, and it is difficult to communicate uncertainty and interpretive choices.	Establish ethical guidelines for digital representation and systematically use visualization techniques like NPR. Develop tools for capturing and sharing paradata.	Conservation experts, public audiences, policy makers, educators, visualization specialists.

10. Future research Directions

    Although this study presents a systematic review and synthesis of those challenges related to documentation of built heritage and the diversity of technical, organizational, and interpretive domains it addresses, it also uncovers opportunities for additional explorations. More specifically, the results highlight the necessity of researching how global conservation charters are best implemented into digital workflows. Although documents such as the Nara Document on Authenticity, the London Charter, and the Seville Principles offer high-level philosophical guidance, the interpretation within practical HBIM methodologies, especially the sequence of calculations involved, is little studied.

    Future research could therefore focus on:

    Operationalizing Charters in Practice: Examining how the principles of authenticity, transparency, and sustainability can be embedded in HBIM workflows, from data acquisition and modeling to paradata management and long-term digital stewardship.

    Such research would build directly on the foundation laid in this paper by moving from the identification of challenges to the development of solutions.

11. Limitations:

This review was conducted using Scopus and Crossref, which provide broad multidisciplinary coverage and reliable bibliographic indexing. However, the reliance on these two databases may still introduce a degree of selection bias, as relevant studies indexed in other repositories might have been overlooked. Future research should expand the database scope and include grey literature to ensure a more comprehensive evidence base.

REFERENCES

1. Povroznik, N. Towards a Global Infrastructure for Digital Cultural Heritage. 2018. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
2. Albuerne, A., J. Grau-Bove, and M. Strlic. The Role of Heritage Data Science in Digital Heritage. 2018. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
3. Yusuf Arayici, J.C., Lamine Mahdjoubi, Gehan Nagy, Soheir Hawas, Khaled Dewidar, ed. Heritage Building Information Modelling. 1 ed. 2017, Routledge.
4. Dore, C. and M. Murphy, Current State of the Art Historic Building Information Modelling. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 2017. XLII-2/W5: p. 185-192.
5. Fai, S., et al. Building Information Modeling and Heritage Documentation. in CIPA 2011 International Symposium Proceedings. 2011. Prague, Czech Republic.
6. Cheng, H.M., W.B. Yang, and Y.N. Yen, BIM applied in historical building documentation and refurbishing. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 2015. 40(5W7): p. 85-90.
7. Counsell, J. and T. Taylor, What are the goals of HBIM?, in Heritage Building Information Modelling. 2017. p. 15-31.
8. Díaz-Vilariño, L., et al., From LiDAR data towards HBIM for energy analysis, in Heritage Building Information Modelling. 2017. p. 224- 241.
9. Scianna, A., G.F. Gaglio, and M. La Guardia, BIM Modelling of Ancient Buildings, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2018. p. 344-355.
10. Baik, A. and J. Boehm, Jeddah Heritage Building Information Modelling (JHBIM), in Heritage Building Information Modelling. 2017. p. 132-153.
11. Banfi, F., Building Information Modelling A Novel Parametric Modeling Approach Based on 3D Surveys of Historic Architecture, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2016. p. 116-127.
12. Mahmoud, M., et al., Automated Scan-to-BIM: A deep learning-base framework for indoor environments with complex furniture elements. Journal of Building Engineering, 2025. 106.
13. Croce, V., et al., H-BIM and Artificial Intelligence: Classification of Architectural Heritage for Semi-Automatic Scan-to-BIM Reconstruction. Sensors, 2023. 23(5).
14. Valero, E., et al., Evaluation of historic masonry, in Heritage Building Information Modelling. 2017, Routledge. p. 75-101.
15. Cembranos, J.R., et al., Supporting the Automatic Extraction of HBIM Elements from Point Clouds, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2018. p. 3-10.
16. Khalil, H.B., HBIM and environmental simulation, in Heritage Building Information Modelling. 2017. p. 190-202.
17. Khodeir, L., Green BIM in heritage building, in Heritage Building Information Modelling. 2017. p. 203-217.
18. Pelcer-Vujai, O., M. Krevs, and Z. atovi, Mapping Cultural Heritage: CLIO MAP, Montenegro, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2021.

    p. 525-532.

19. Däßler, R. and U. Preuß, Digital Preservation of Cultural Heritage for Small Institutions, in Digital Cultural Heritage. 2020. p. 109-117.
20. Langley, S., Planning for the End from the Start: An Argument for Digital Stewardship, Long-Term Thinking and Alternative Capture Approaches for Digital Content, in Digital Cultural Heritage. 2020. p. 209-237.
21. Parrinello, S. and F. Cioli, Establishment of a Complex Database for the Study of Cultural Heritage Through the Reading and Analysis of the Traditional Architecture of Upper Kama, in Digital Cultural Heritage. 2020. p. 51-61.
22. Cheng, Y.M., et al., HBIM in Cultural Heritage Conservation: Component Library for Woodwork in Historic Buildings in Taiwan, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2018. p. 376-385.
23. Meng, L., et al., Ancient Asian Character Recognition for Literature Preservation and Understanding, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2018.

    p. 741-751.

24. Chen, W.-W., Body as Echoes: Cyber Archiving of Buddhist Deities in the Cave Temples of China, in Digital Cultural Heritage. 2020. p. 119- 137.
25. Littlefield, D., Heritage and time, in Heritage Building Information Modelling. 2017. p. 32-45.
26. Biagini, C. and A. Bongini, BIM and Data Integration: A Workflow for the Implementation of Digital Twins, in Beyond Digital Representation. 2024. p. 821-835.
27. Khalil, A., S. Stravoravdis, and D. Backes, Categorisation of building data in the digital documentation of heritage buildings. Applied Geomatics, 2020. 13(1): p. 29-54.
28. Farinella, G.M., S. Battiato, and S.A. Tsaftaris, Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation: 5th International Conference, EuroMed 2014, Limassol, Cyprus, November 3-8, 2014, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2014: Springer International Publishing.
29. Ioannides, M., et al., 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage V. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2025: Springer International Publishing.
30. Münster, S., et al., Researching Knowledge Concerns in Virtual Historical Architecture, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2016. p. 362- 374.
31. Sitnik, R., G. Mczkowski, and J. Krzesowski, Calculation Methods for Digital Model Creation Based on Integrated Shape, Color and Angular Reflectivity Measurement, in Digital Heritage. 2010. p. 13-27.
32. Ioannides, M. and P. Patias, The Complexity and Quality in 3D Digitisation of the Past: Challenges and Risks, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage III. 2023. p. 1-33.
33. Münster, S., W. Hegel, and C. Kröber, A Model Classification for Digital 3D Reconstruction in the Context of Humanities Research, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage II. 2016. p. 3-31.
34. Cassar, A., Digitising the National Collection, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage V. 2025. p. 184-195.
35. De Luca, L. and D. Lo Buglio, Geometry vs Semantics: Open Issues on 3D Reconstruction of Architectural Elements, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage. 2014. p. 36-49.
36. Cihla, M. and J. Valach, Digital Traceological and Mechanoscopic Methods in the Study of the Stone Surface of Historical Objects, in Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. 2021. p. 482-488.
37. Frost, A., et al., Digital Documentation of Reflective Objects: A Cross- Polarised Photogrammetry Workflow for Complex Materials, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage III. 2023. p. 131-155.
38. Leonardi, M.L., D.V. Oliveira, and M. Azenha, On the Use of HBIM for the Analysis of Historical Constructions: Technical and Semantic Interoperability for Different Aspects of the Structural Assessment, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage IV. 2025. p. 1-20.
39. von Schwerin, J., et al., Show Me the Data!: Structuring Archaeological Data to Deliver Interactive, Transparent 3D Reconstructions in a 3D WebGIS, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage II. 2016. p. 198-230.
40. Apollonio, F.I., Classification Schemes for Visualization of Uncertainty in Digital Hypothetical Reconstruction, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage II. 2016. p. 173-197.
41. Bentkowska-Kafel, A., H. Denard, and D. Baker, The London Charter for the Computer-based Visualisation of Cultural Heritage (Version 2.0, February 2009), in Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage,

    A. Bentkowska-Kafel, H. Denard, and D. Baker, Editors. 2012, Routledge: London. p. 75-90.

42. Blersch, D., et al., Towards Sustainable Digitization, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage III. 2023. p. 34-49.
43. Bruschke, J. and M. Wacker, Simplifying Documentation of Digital Reconstruction Processes, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage II. 2016. p. 256-271.
44. Ammirati, L., et al., Dive into Heritage: Paradata and Metadata in an Immersive Digital Heritage Experience, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage V. 2025. p. 36-51.
45. Grellert, M., et al., IDOVIR A New Infrastructure for Documenting Paradata and Metadata of Virtual Reconstructions, in 3D Research Challenges in Cultural Heritage V. 2025. p. 103-114.
46. Villa, C., et al., 3D Documentation of Stone Sites at Ilulissat, West Greenland, in Visual Heritage: Digital Approaches in Heritage Science,

1. Ch’ng, et al., Editors. 2022, Springer International Publishing: Cham.

p. 115-132.