By Ahmed Hagras
Senior Lecturer in BIM; Programme Leader, MSc Building Information Modelling
On Friday 19 June 2026, UWE Bristol hosted Digital Construction and AI: Who’s in Control? at UWE Bristol Business School, Frenchay Campus. The event was organised through the MSc Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Design, Construction and Operations programme, and funded by the Centre for Advanced Built Environment Research (CABER).
This was the third edition of a growing annual conference series that brings together industry, academia, professional bodies, students and researchers to explore the future direction of the built environment. This year’s theme focused on one of the most important questions now facing digital construction: as artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in professional practice, who remains in control?
The event generated strong engagement and very positive feedback, with 110+ attendees taking part on the day. A surface-level analysis of the attendee demographics indicated that approximately 64% were from industry and external organisations, around 34% were from UWE Bristol, and approximately 2% were from other academic institutions. This shows the event’s strong industry focus and the breadth of engagement across professional practice and academia.
Moving beyond AI hype
A key message from the day was that industry is not looking for AI for its own sake. The discussion moved quickly beyond excitement about tools to more grounded questions about value, responsibility, implementation, and risk. The central message was clear: AI should not take control away from professionals. Instead, it should help project teams better manage complexity. This was strongly reflected in the Morgan Sindall Construction contribution, which framed AI around practical value, responsible deployment and human oversight. The presentation asked whether AI is being used to take control away from project teams, or whether it can give teams better control over complexity. It also stressed that construction decisions affect safety, quality, cost, carbon, and building users.
For BIM and digital construction education, this lesson is crucial. Students need to learn not only what AI tools can do. They need to understand when those tools are useful, how they should be governed, and where human judgement must remain central.
Human judgement remains central
Across the conference, a consistent message emerged: AI should support professional judgement, not replace it.
Industry contributors recognised AI’s value in summarising information, identifying patterns, improving access to project data, flagging risks, and reducing repetitive work. However, they also stressed that AI does not understand the full project context in the way experienced professionals do.
Design, construction and asset management decisions are not purely technical. They involve buildability, safety, commercial judgement, client priorities, regulatory requirements, carbon impact and long-term responsibility. This means that professional judgement remains essential.
The future graduate therefore needs to be more than a software user. They need to question outputs, understand uncertainty, communicate risk, and make informed decisions.
Data as the foundation of responsible AI
Another major theme was data. The conference highlighted that AI is only as useful as the data, assumptions and context behind it.
One of the strongest messages came from Isabella Bhoan’s presentation, Data as Tether, which reminded us that AI is only as good as the patterns it sees. But the more important question is: who decides which patterns matter?
This raised important issues around data bias, language, local context, governance and equity. Poor data quality and poor data governance were presented not simply as technical limitations, but as risks that can shape how AI interprets the world.
For BIM education, this matters greatly. Data is not neutral. People and organisations produce, select, structure, and interpret it. Future BIM graduates must therefore be data-critical, not simply digitally competent. They need to understand data quality, provenance, bias, interoperability and local context.
Information management before artificial intelligence
The event also reinforced a core BIM principle: good information management comes before effective AI.
The nima presentation on AI considerations for information managers made this point very clearly. Adding AI to a well-planned and well-implemented information management approach is likely to be beneficial. Adding AI to a chaotic, poorly defined or unstable process is unlikely to be beneficial.
This is an important message for the built environment. AI does not fix poor information management. In many cases, it exposes it.
For the BIM subject area, this means AI should not be treated as a separate or isolated topic. It needs to be embedded within information management, data quality, standards, governance, explainability, accountability and decision-making.
Accountability does not disappear
One of the most important questions raised during the event was accountability. If AI influences a decision, who is responsible for the outcome?
The industry message was direct: using AI tools does not remove accountability. People and organisations remain responsible for the decisions made, the outputs produced and the outcomes delivered.
This is a major issue for education. Future professionals need to understand that digital tools may support decision-making, but responsibility cannot simply be delegated to software. Graduates must be able to justify decisions, explain the basis of recommendations and understand the risks of relying uncritically on AI-generated outputs.
AI, BIM and whole-life carbon
The conference also connected AI and digital construction to one of the built environment’s most urgent challenges: carbon reduction.
Catherine Sinclair’s presentation on early-stage design decisions and whole-life carbon showed that many of the decisions that shape carbon outcomes are made very early in the design process. Life cycle assessment is often treated as a late-stage reporting task, but the real opportunity is to bring carbon thinking into earlier design decisions, when change is still possible.
This has direct relevance to BIM, AI and digital construction education. Digital tools should not only help students model, coordinate or automate. They should help future professionals understand consequences, compare options and make better decisions about carbon, resources and long-term performance.
Academia and industry: a productive tension
The live debate between academia and industry brought the event theme into sharp focus.
The academic side raised wider questions around ethics, responsibility, professional judgement, learning, automation bias and the role of universities in preparing students for an AI-enabled sector.
The industry side focused on implementation: what problem are we solving, what value does AI create, how do we scale responsibly, how do we manage risk, and how do project teams remain in control?
This was not a disagreement. It was a productive tension.
Academia asked what should be questioned, safeguarded and taught. Industry asked what can be implemented, governed and used effectively in real project environments. The future of BIM and digital construction education sits between these two positions.
Questions for BIM and digital construction education
The event raised several important questions for our subject area:
- Are we teaching students to question AI outputs, not just use AI tools?
- Are data quality, provenance and information management embedded deeply enough in the curriculum?
- Do students understand accountability when digital tools influence professional decisions?
- Are business case, rollout, ownership and proof of value part of digital construction education?
- Are we connecting AI and BIM with early-stage design, whole-life carbon and sustainability?
- Are we developing responsible digital decision-makers, not only software users?
These questions are no longer optional. They are becoming central to what it means to prepare graduates for the future of the built environment.
Looking ahead
The strongest message from the conference was that the question “Who is in control?” is not about resisting AI. It is about preparing people to use AI with evidence, judgement and responsibility.
For UWE Bristol, the event created a valuable space for industry and academia to learn from each other, challenge assumptions and reflect on what future professionals will need. It also reinforced the importance of employer engagement in shaping curriculum, assessment and student learning.
The future BIM and digital construction graduate will need data literacy, information management capability, ethical awareness, implementation skills, carbon awareness and confidence in professional judgement.
In that sense, the conference did more than ask who is in control. It reminded us that education plays a vital role in shaping how control, responsibility, and judgement develop for the future of digital construction.
We look forward to continuing the conversation and building on this momentum at next year’s event.
Mark your calendar: 18 June 2027.