The digital transformation of the built environment is at a pivotal crossroads, a “liminal phase” where the old is giving way to the new. As a commentator and consultant who has spent a few years in this space now, I find myself in a similar transition. My recent dialogue with industry veteran James Pellatt has provided the perfect lens to reflect on this profound moment and re-evaluate my key focus areas.

For a long time, my market engagement has centred on understanding the challenges faced by different stakeholders in the smart buildings ecosystem and sometimes helping groups of practitioners reach consensus on these. As documented in my Smart Buildings Magazine report from early last year, the agenda I co-created with that group of industry leaders covered:

• Definitions & Standards
• AI, Cybersecurity & Data matters
• The broader ESG agenda
• The Landlord & Tenant dichotomy
• The Smart Enablement Process
• Business Case, ROI, and Risk

The question now is whether these challenges are still key or have evolved. They are connected to the project-operations gap problem I helped articulate after a roundtable of rating bodies in 2023 highlighted the following:

Building users and facilities staff remain frustrated by the lack of influence and input they have over smart specifications defined during the design and planning phases, by stakeholders that will walk away at practical completion, even though they ultimately run the building

That important insight informed my early critique of the RIBA Smart Buildings Overlay, a viral “rant” that exposed the critical disconnect between design, construction, and operation. At the time, that felt like the most pressing issue.

Today, that same project-operations gap feels like a problem of the “then,” of a pre-AI world. Any review that simply aims to bridge that divide, while important, risks providing a snapshot of “what is smart now” rather than anticipating what’s smarter next. A framework in a world of constant technological updates and increasing maturity of client understanding and deployment cannot afford to be a historical document. It must embrace the agile, iterative product mindset of software development, not just the linear project mindset of construction.

This dynamic evolution means that any existing or future smart building frameworks, ratings, or certifications will need to look squarely at what’s smarter next to remain relevant and effective.

This is where my own approach comes in. While many traditional research and market analyst firms, like a boutique version of Gartner or Forrester, focus on providing snapshots of the current market landscape, my market engagement is driven by a unique Sensemaking methodology with a different goal. It is an ongoing, iterative process designed to anticipate the future and, without a commercial axe to grind, to Contribute to the industry dialogue and common good by:

• Framing the Problem: Identifying and articulating the systemic industry issues.
• Collecting the Data: Through deep and meaningful conversations with industry pioneers like James Pellatt.
• Looking for Patterns: Applying my core skills of critical analysis, dot-joining, and creativity to synthesise insights.
• Creating Key Insights: Building a clear and forward-looking narrative that anticipates future trends.
• Building Impact: Using these insights to drive important conversations and bring clarity to a fragmented market.

This methodology is a refined adaptation of a qualitative management consultancy approach, directly based on the one developed by ReD Associates. The core process remains the same, but the activities are applied to my work as a market engagement specialist.

The RIBA Smart Buildings Overlay review is the perfect case study for this approach. By commenting constructively from the outside as neutral observer with no direct commercial axe to grind, I am helping to ensure the dialogue remains focused on the fundamental questions that need to be answered for the industry to escape its liminal phase and truly deliver on the promise of intelligent, sustainable built environments.

The impact of what James is talking about is not just about the smart buildings market, but its implications for digital transformation in the built environment, and everywhere else beyond for that matter. Where smart buildings are now heading is therefore a consequence of that bigger picture and it cannot be examined in isolation of it.

The same applies for the Smart Buildings Overlay: it has to be framed now beyond just the plugging of the project-operations gap. That is just one vector in a much bigger picture where AI is the driver pushing strategic analysis about where we are at and where we are heading.

If you step back and look at the business model environment, then drawing conclusions about where you might want to get to based on observing a specific trend, however important—for example, the spectacular growth of the WELL standards that I covered recently—could be a catastrophic mistake if other more powerful forces are not also considered.

This seismic shift is already playing out in the smart buildings platform space, creating a “ground zero” moment for the entire sector. We are now entering an era where platforms demonstrating quantifiable, predictive AI capabilities for genuine optimisation and productivity will distinguish themselves from those offering only basic analysis and a dashboard regardless of any fancy graphics. This profound technological inflection point makes the case for intelligent buildings so much more compelling.

This is a crucial part of my own transition and my ongoing commitment to foster the conversations that genuinely drive the industry forward.