What are the challenges of i-Construction 2.0? Reasons for slow adoption and countermeasures

Therefore, this is a topic that tends to feel especially frustrating to on-site practitioners: they understand the necessity but wonder why progress is not happening as expected. In practice, while adoption has advanced considerably in government-managed projects, the pace differs by region, project scale, procurement conditions, and internal company structure. This article organizes the challenges of i-Construction 2.0 from a practical viewpoint, and clearly explains the real reasons adoption stalls and realistic countermeasures to move it forward.

Table of contents

• Why the challenges of i-Construction 2.0 are gaining attention now

• What i-Construction 2.0 actually is

• Reason 1 adoption stalls: improvements at the single-site level are not enough

• Reason 2 adoption stalls: the barrier of 3D data integration and standardization

• Reason 3 adoption stalls: training and role design lag behind

• Reason 4 adoption stalls: hard to fit small-scale and regional sites

• Reason 5 adoption stalls: difficulty demonstrating cost-effectiveness

• Reason 6 adoption stalls: procurement, inspection, and contract operations do not fully change

• Countermeasures to advance i-Construction 2.0

• Summary

Why the challenges of i-Construction 2.0 are gaining attention now

Behind the sudden weight given to the challenges of i-Construction 2.0 are structural changes surrounding the construction industry. The White Paper on Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism shows that as of 2024 the share of construction workers aged 55 and older was 36.7%, higher than the overall industry average, while the share aged 29 and younger was a low 11.7%. In other words, the generation that has supported worksites is aging while securing younger workers is not keeping pace. Given the expected large-scale retirement of older workers and the decline in young entrants going forward, there is growing concern that the same labor-dependent methods will make it difficult to continue meeting construction volumes and maintenance demands.

Moreover, from April 2024 overtime limits have been applied to the construction industry, making operations that rely on long working hours to keep schedules going less viable. Until now, many sites absorbed the invisible burdens—drawing revisions, creation of as-built documents, changeovers, re-measurements, and re-entry of data—through overtime. Now, however, sites must reduce those burdens themselves just to operate. i-Construction 2.0 is receiving attention not because it is a technological fad, but because the need to change work systems has become clear from both labor shortages and workstyle reforms.

On top of that, increasingly severe disasters and aging infrastructure add pressure. To carry out construction and maintenance with fewer people, more safely, faster, and more reliably, it is necessary to reduce the time people spend stationed in hazardous locations, speed up information linkage between site and office, and make the same data repeatedly usable. i-Construction 2.0 points in that direction, but because the goals are large, the barriers to adoption have become more visible all at once.

What i-Construction 2.0 actually is

i-Construction 2.0 clearly sets out three pillars as the next stage. The first is automation of construction operations. The second is automation of data linkage, aiming for digital information exchange that does not rely on paper or manual entry. The third is automation of construction management, including remote and off-site operations to reduce on-site labor. The important point is that advancing only one of these is not sufficient. Even if construction itself is automated, the effect is limited if design data cannot be used; and even if data is linked, if inspections remain paper-based, human bottlenecks will persist at the end.

Reason 1 adoption stalls: improvements at the single-site level are not enough

The biggest reason i-Construction 2.0 is slow to progress is that improving a single site alone does not make it work. In many sites, consideration of adoption starts from localized optimizations such as “speed up surveying a little,” “make machines a little smarter,” or “make as-built tasks a little easier.” That approach is not wrong in itself. However, i-Construction 2.0 requires linking the entire flow—measuring, designing, constructing, recording, inspecting, and handing over. If only one stage is digitized while the preceding and following stages remain conventional, conversion, transcribing, checking, and correction work can increase.

A common on-site pattern is that 3D data is obtained during surveying, then the design stage reverts to 2D-centered exchanges, then construction again reintroduces 3D, and inspections return to creating paper forms. This tends to leave the impression that introducing technology increased workload, lowering internal evaluation. The reason adoption stalls is often not that site personnel are reluctant, but that partial introduction is done without designing the links between stages. It is more accurate to view i-Construction 2.0 as a reform of business processes than merely a technology introduction.

Reason 2 adoption stalls: the barrier of 3D data integration and standardization

The second barrier is that having 3D data and making it usable for work are different things. i-Construction 2.0 aims to integrally handle 3D models, point cloud data, geospatial information, and more through BIM/CIM, making data utilization and sharing between clients and contractors easier. However, in practice, if operational aspects such as data formats, how attributes are assigned, alignment with 2D drawings, update rules, and who treats which data as authoritative are not organized, work will not proceed even if data exists.

When this problem occurs on-site, the 3D data created often ends up as material only for viewing. Data that should connect to quantity calculation, construction planning, as-built confirmation, consensus building, and inspection efficiency remains mere visualization. The challenge of i-Construction 2.0 is not the presence or absence of 3D data, but whether 3D data has been turned into a reusable business asset. Without sufficient standardization, the more sites there are, the more bespoke responses increase and the situation becomes harder.

Reason 3 adoption stalls: training and role design lag behind

The third cause is human resources. While i-Construction 2.0 may seem like a story about machines and data, human roles change significantly. Even on sites where surveyors, constructors, and document preparers were relatively separated, there is now a need for personnel who understand the meaning of 3D data, can obtain the necessary information, share it with stakeholders, and connect it through to inspection and explanation. Furthermore, as automated and remote construction spread, new roles such as monitoring, judgment, safety management, and data verification will increase in addition to operation.

Another commonly overlooked issue is the lack of role design. Training alone does not guarantee progress; if it is not made clear within the company who will manage models, who will take measurements, who will use data on-site, and who will link to supervision and inspection, work will concentrate on a few knowledgeable people. As a result, during the early adoption phase the workload for those responsible becomes high and reactions such as “it was supposed to make things easier but it’s actually harder” occur. The human resource challenge of i-Construction 2.0 is not only insufficient education but also delayed organizational design.

Reason 4 adoption stalls: hard to fit small-scale and regional sites

The fourth cause is compatibility with small-scale and regional sites. In government-managed civil engineering work, the ICT construction implementation rate reached about 90% on a notice-count basis in fiscal 2024. On the other hand, while ICT earthwork in prefectures and ordinance-designated cities is increasing, the implementation rate in the same materials was 24% in fiscal 2024, showing a gap in progress. This is not because the technology is unnecessary, but because site conditions and procurement conditions differ and the same method is hard to horizontally deploy.

Even in government-managed projects, the share of C/D-grade companies based in local regions that have experience with ICT construction has increased to 58.4%, but conversely this means more than 40% still do not have sufficient experience. Even when results appear on large sites or easily standardized work types, conventional introduction models often do not fit conditions such as small-scale, confined, repair, urban, or built-up areas. This fosters the impression that “i-Construction 2.0 is a story for big sites,” creating a psychological barrier to adoption.

Reason 5 adoption stalls: difficulty demonstrating cost-effectiveness

The fifth cause is showing cost-effectiveness. Ultimately, i-Construction 2.0 leads to labor saving, productivity improvement, safety enhancement, workstyle reform, and quality assurance, but in early adoption the burdens of training, equipment operation, data preparation, and rule adjustments appear first. For this reason, even if site personnel feel the necessity, proposals often stop at the stage of explaining to management or higher-level administrators. In particular, measures whose effects appear across stages are hard to value by on-site unit cost comparisons alone.

In practice, organizing value from perspectives such as “how many re-measurements can be reduced,” “how much rework can be suppressed,” “how much changeover time can be shortened,” and “how much entry into hazardous areas can be reduced” makes the value of i-Construction 2.0 easier to see. It is not that cost-effectiveness cannot be shown, but that it becomes hard to convey if the wrong unit is used to demonstrate it.

Reason 6 adoption stalls: procurement, inspection, and contract operations do not fully change

The sixth cause is that procurement, inspection, and contract operations have not fully kept pace with technological progress. No matter how much a site uses 3D data, if contract documents assume 2D, inspections assume paper forms, and supervision assumes face-to-face processes, human labor returns at the end. This is a major factor that makes i-Construction 2.0 feel difficult. For on-site personnel, changing only construction methods while submission documents and confirmation procedures remain unchanged makes workload appear duplicated.

In addition, automating construction management requires communication environments and security measures that support remote and off-site operations. Government materials also indicate the development of high-speed networks and data centers, which conversely means that to make remote operations a reality, infrastructure outside the site is indispensable. i-Construction 2.0 does not lag because sites are lazy, but because technology, systems, communications, and security must be in place concurrently to move forward.

Countermeasures to advance i-Construction 2.0

Given the challenges so far, the starting point for countermeasures is “do not try to change everything at once.” Although i-Construction 2.0 aims for overall optimization, attempting to fully digitize all processes from the start tends to fail in practical adoption. First, identify the single process in your company or site that is losing the most time, and improve that process including its handovers to surrounding stages. For example, if staking out and as-built confirmation are time-consuming, you should not only change measurement methods but also pre-design how that data will connect to construction management and inspection. This prevents partial adoption and builds a stepping stone toward overall optimization.

Next, decide at least minimal internal data standards. If you decide from scratch on every project which format is authoritative, who checks consistency between 2D and 3D, how far attributes should be carried, and what data will be used for inspection and explanation, standards will not stick. Since government-level efforts such as BIM/CIM handling guidelines and trials for 3D model use are advancing, companies must shift their thinking from “project-specific responses” to “internal operations that can be reused.” Standardization looks troublesome, but lacking standards increases site-by-site personalization and rework.

Also, for small sites, rather than shrinking large-site mechanisms into place, adopt an introduction sequence tailored for small scales. The government is preparing standards for small-scale works such as guidance for small machine guidance and as-built management with mobile devices. This indicates that the key to spread is not “high functionality” but “fit to the site.” Small sites tend to avoid heavy-preparation systems. It is easier to establish practices by starting with measurement that one person can handle, easy-to-understand coordinate acquisition, and records that can be shared quickly—changes close to daily work.

Furthermore, change how effects are demonstrated. What should be compared before and after introduction is not simple equipment cost. If you look at metrics such as number of re-measurements, number of rework cases, on-site attendance time, document preparation time, number of entries into hazardous areas, and time to reach agreements with stakeholders, the value of i-Construction 2.0 becomes clearer. With the government moving toward evaluating value rather than price alone, companies should explain not only whether something is cheap or expensive, but how much it frees personnel, reduces accidents and errors, and contributes to schedule and quality stability.

Finally, do not postpone connections with inspection and procurement. If digitalization on-site returns to paper during submission and verification, responsible personnel will inevitably become exhausted. Therefore, alongside site improvements, it is necessary to organize early on which data can be used by supervision and inspection, what can be omitted, and what should be retained as a record. Companies that advance i-Construction 2.0 earlier design the data outlets before introducing equipment. Changing only the input does not lead to penetration. Only implementations that connect through to the output will be horizontally deployed to other sites.

Summary

The challenges of i-Construction 2.0 are not only technical difficulty. Multiple intertwined issues—labor shortages, workstyle reform, fit with small-scale sites, 3D data standardization, human resource development, and revision of procurement and inspection operations—make adoption difficult. Reducing the causes to simplistic explanations such as “lack of on-site understanding” or “equipment is too sophisticated” misreads the essence. What is needed is to identify where time and labor are being lost on-site, and to steadily accumulate small but certain improvements in ways that allow data to connect across stages.

When advancing i-Construction 2.0 in practice, it is also important not to make the first step too heavy. Especially, whether routine tasks—measuring, staking out, recording, and sharing—can be lightened greatly affects adoption success. If you want to start coordinate acquisition and record sharing in a form that is easy to handle on-site, it is effective to begin with mechanisms that can seamlessly digitize daily positioning work, such as LRTK, an iPhone-mounted GNSS high-precision positioning device. Aiming for a large-scale overhaul at once is less effective than reliably changing basic on-site actions, which in turn accelerates the establishment of i-Construction 2.0.