Toward a Functional Digital Twin for Retail: a Critical Challenge in Digital Systems Design

Moad Ziadi, Project Management Director Europe, Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield

Moad Ziadi is currently the Project Management Director for Europe at Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield, the world’s largest commercial real estate company operating in Europe and the United States. With a career spanning more than 25 years, he has had the opportunity to work in development and construction within an international context, particularly in the Caribbean, Russia, Singapore, the Middle East and Europe. His experience covers a wide range of projects, including stadiums, offices, hotels, flagship shopping malls and residential developments. Ziadi is also a visiting professor at the ESTP Engineering School in Paris.

Through this interview, Ziadi explores the challenges facing the retail real estate industry, drawing on his extensive experience since joining Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield. He shares insights into the obstacles encountered by designers and builders when developing a digital twin model that can also be used for asset facility management.

Digitalization now reigns over all sectors of economic activity. Construction and civil works are not excluded from this wave of progress.

In the field of design and construction, the most notable digital innovation is the use of digital platforms and Building Information Modelling (BIM), starting as early as the design stage. Clients were captivated by the immersive 3D animations BIM offered and, with the aid of augmented reality, could envision the finished space even before the first foundation pit was dug. Architects quickly moved away from unintuitive 2D plans (particularly confusing for nonexpert clients) in favour of more user-friendly perspectives.

Over time, the 3D model evolved into a more robust digital system, integrating a comprehensive dataset— product datasheets, EPDs’, procurement and execution schedules, cost control dashboards, on-site quality control protocols, handover process surveys and snagging management tools. These digital resources are undeniably transforming a sector as ancient as civilization itself, yet the true reality of construction still resides on-site, not onscreen.

When BIM began gaining traction in Europe in the early 2000s, France lagged behind. Major players lacked both the tools and the training. In response, small startups founded by young tech-savvy entrepreneurs began partnering with large construction, engineering and architecture firms to bridge the gap. Many organizations were not yet ready for this transformation and implementing BIM often resulted in increased costs for clients and developers.

“I didn’t want to stop the digitalisation integration at design stage. I aimed to extend the digital model into the operational phase”

In 2013, I organized a conference at Unibail-RodamcoWestfield, bringing together leading architectural and engineering firms from across Europe. I posed a simple question—what framework can we define in the retail industry to create a standardized digital twin that supports project management, design coordination and future facility operations?

From a development project management standpoint, I concluded that mandating a BIM charter could increase design fees by up to 30 percent. For asset management, the challenge was even greater. Depending on the defined scope, the impact on design costs could range from 30 percent to as much as 100 percent.

This finding was surprising, especially considering the repeated claims from BIM advocates that digital modelling leads to lower costs. I soon realized—cost reductions are only achieved when the BIM charter is created by the designers themselves following their own needs. For clients, developers or property companies, this “revolution” often meant the creation of new positions “BIM Managers and Coordinators” whose costs added up without delivering clear value to the end user.

Each time I asked, “What does the client actually gain?” I received the same response—“Better plan coordination and fewer design clashes.” Yet, every time a software representative raised this point, I reminded them of their contractual obligation: “You owe the client design coordination with or without BIM.” I concluded that BIM is merely a tool. Providers must remember their obligation to deliver results, not just to follow a process. The client pays for coordinated design, not for BIM itself.

Still, we couldn’t ignore the digital revolution. We had to organize our approach to avoid disorganized adoption, which could harm rather than help.

When several designers, engineers and architects—each with different BIM practices—are brought together under the same contract, it’s often easier to adopt a light BIM charter. This approach gives each party enough flexibility to work efficiently without forcing them to overhaul their processes and avoids unnecessary coordination bottlenecks.

Integrating BIM into the tendering process presents challenges as well. Mistakes in digital models can lead to claims from contractors. Moreover, contractors often use their own BIM environments for execution studies, which add complexity and dilutes the benefits of digitization, leaving the client with few immediate returns on investment.

I didn’t want to stop the digitalisation integration at design stage. I aimed to extend the digital model into the operational phase. With Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield holding sixty-five billion euros in assets across Europe and the US, developing digital twins of these assets could both boost their value and transform design and construction.

Beyond drawings coordination, these digital twins would become powerful operational tools covering both soft services (cleaning, CCTV, etc.) and hard services (technical maintenance, lifecycle management).

This approach also enables unprecedented ESG visibility. Digital modelling allows for precise energy tracking and compliance with new taxonomy regulations, as well as carbon footprint monitoring. Platforms like “Madaster”, which we piloted on the “Mall of the Netherlands” Westfield development, make it possible to establish a “materials bank” a pioneering effort for retail developers.

But this model has its limits especially in retail.

I challenged engineering teams to define how we could create a digital twin for a retail project that supports both development and operation. The answers were incomplete and revealed the retail sector’s unique incompatibility with current BIM standards.

There are several reasons for this incompatibility and digital industry should consider these reasons to gain ground in this still unexploited sector:

The stakeholder uncertainty: Retail development projects often launch before all tenants are known. These stakeholders later request design changes, which can be difficult to implement in rigid, “heavy” BIM models that don’t adapt easily.

Divided project responsibilities: Developers usually don’t design MEP systems or tenant fit outs within the leased areas. Much of the building’s data depends on how tenants choose to develop and manage their spaces.

Most retail development projects are carried out on existing assets, which are mostly old and require, for BIM modeling, a thorough survey of the existing building—a task made difficult when the building is still in operation.

Retail is a living asset: In a shopping mall including 200/250 leases, there is typically a 5 to 15 percent annual reletting. Maintaining an up-to-date BIM model requires dedicated resources. As a result, the property companies conclude that they must ultimately prioritize the real twin— the physical asset that generates their income.