# Interoperability of Digital Tools for the Monitoring and Control of Construction Projects
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Validation of Digital Tools  
To validate the performance of the 30 technologies that present the potential use for monitoring and control within the AIC industry, the judgment of five experts was used to consider the evaluations determined by the author. Each expert gave their judgment on each of the six criteria for the FDCT and CT groups, the ratings of which are shown in Tables 12 and 14, respectively. In the frequency tables (refer to Tables 12 and 14), it is possible to note the level of performance achieved by each technology according to the criteria of each group, excluding the \"not applicable\" cases (Table 12). Note that, in general (Table 13), technologies have a general solution or certain limitations; only smartphones have limited usefulness. For time efficiency, 100% of the technologies do not take more time than the traditional method, and 57% of the technologies meet the objective of obtaining as-built data in less time compared to the traditional method, where those that would take more time are matched by the accuracy of the information obtained, with the exception of smartphones. The accuracy of the data is 86% reliable and provides accurate information about the current state of progress. Automation is achieved in 86% of the technologies, where smartphones are again the exception. The obstacles to the implementation of technologies, as usual, are centered on the required training and equipment. It is essential to have qualified personnel with the necessary knowledge to perform the methods. Although these technologies have become more prevalent in recent years, as they are complex techniques, their manipulation is not trivial. UAVs have become the tool that has been able to close this gap and are increasingly implemented with greater frequency due to their versatility, ease of learning and portable equipment. Figure 11: Full network analysis—closeness. For the results in Table 14, the interoperability of the technologies was measured based on the information obtained in the previous chapter, considering the full relationships, that is, the combination between the intra-connections relationship and interconnections relationship of the FDCT and CT technologies. Some technologies received a score of 0 because no document was identified where these technologies interact with others. A score of 1 was assigned to technologies that presented a betweenness less than or equal to 5. Technologies with a score of 1 or 2 presented the highest values: in decreasing order, building information modeling, photogrammetry, digital twins, mobile applications and the Internet of Things. All of the technologies collect information via electronic means; however, 39% still use the traditional method as a complementary method. In terms of decentralization, there is a distinct trend towards partial delegation of actions and/or decisions at the CSC level. On the other hand, 80% of communicative and collaborative technologies present an instantaneous retrieval of information or take less time than the traditional method. There is a balance towards meeting the needs of stakeholders within the capabilities offered by each of the technologies. However, there is a medium adaptation to changing requirements, especially for visualization or simulation technologies such as AR, VR, DT, MR and SMT, since the changes generated in the field will not always be represented in these technologies (Table 15). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Criteria**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Frequency of Performance**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Good** & **Intermediate** & **Poor** \\  & **(2)** & **(1)** & **(0)** \\ \hline Utility & LS; UWB; UAV & RFID; WSN; R & SMT \\ \hline Time efficiency & LS; UWB; WSN; R & RFID; UAV; SMT \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Accuracy} & RFID; LS; UWB; WSN; UAV; R & SMT \\ \hline Level of automation & LS; UWB; WSN; R & RFID; UAV & SMT \\ \hline Training required & WSN; UAV; SMT; R & RFID; LS; UWB \\ \hline Equipment & WSN; UAV; SMT & RFID; LS; UWB; R \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}