Toward a systematic integration of digital technologies in facility management organizations and services Open Access

The Facility Management (FM) sector has been slow to adopt digital technologies (DTs). Existing research is fragmented, primarily emphasizing technical challenges, whereas industry actors question which technologies and strategic goals to prioritize, and how to manage the associated organizational changes. This article aims to develop frameworks to systematically integrate DTs into FM organizations and services.

Several drivers are accelerating digitalization in FM. First, policy frameworks are shaping market conditions for digitalization. Second, both traditional and emerging “PropTech” suppliers are increasingly focusing on FM (Vigren et al., 2022; Oladiran and Dickins, 2024; Tagliaro et al., 2025). The number of DT providers has increased by 300% over the past decade (JLL, 2021), with more than 9,000 companies worldwide now offering DT solutions (Unissu, 2025). The global PropTech market is projected to grow from $34bn in 2023 to $90bn by 2032 (Fortune Business Insights, 2024). Third, digitalization is being driven by sector-specific needs, including customer demands. Consequently, digitalization remains a focal topic in both industry and academic debates.

Nevertheless, FM and the broader built environment (BE) sector face persistent challenges in digitalization. FM’s innovation rate is below the EU average, and its digital adoption lags behind most other sectors (FMgoesDIGI, 2022; European Commission, 2024). Overall, the systematic integration of DTs into FM organizations and services remains limited.

Multiple structural factors contribute to these challenges. Most construction and real estate firms are small or microenterprises – 94% employ fewer than nine people (Buildings Performance Institute Europe, 2016) – and technology firms are no exception. Even large companies operate in fragmented local markets and often lack the specialized personnel needed to drive innovation (Bäcklund et al., 2024). Technology firms are concentrated in the most economically developed regions. This concentration confines innovation to local ecosystems, serving a relatively narrow group of stakeholders. Furthermore, the sector has limited access to multinational or multidisciplinary expertise, which restricts innovation primarily to incremental and imitation-based innovation (Nyoni et al., 2023). Consequently, cutting-edge practices remain geographically and organizationally siloed.

Despite these barriers, DTs offer transformative potential. They can enable more sustainable building operations and management (Tan and Miller, 2023). Projections suggest that digitalization could reduce annual global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20% by 2030 through real-time monitoring, optimization, and automation (Global Enabling Sustainability Initiative, 2024). Digitalization also promises to enhance accuracy, transparency, efficiency, and democratization.

There is a need to better understand the technologies themselves, their potential applications, and the challenges associated with their adoption (Redlein and Grasl, 2018). A lack of such understanding has long hindered innovation in the sector (Vigren et al., 2022; Ebbesen and Bonke, 2014). Moreover, the need for knowledge coordination across the building lifecycle further highlights the importance of adopting integrated perspectives (Whyte et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2017). FM digitalization must be viewed as part of a broader transformation of the BE (Papadonikolaki et al., 2022).

This article develops frameworks to systematically integrate DTs into FM organizations and services. Our research approach is interdisciplinary and phenomenon-driven, recognizing that digitalization is itself an interdisciplinary challenge (Reinecke et al., 2024; Tarafdar and Davison, 2018). We draw on a broad base of interdisciplinary literature (Snyder, 2019), including innovation management (IM), information systems (IS), and FM research. We engaged participants from diverse disciplinary and professional backgrounds to contribute to the formulation of relevant questions for research and management of digitalization in FM.

We contribute to the literature on digitalization in FM, which calls for empirical evidence, new strategizing, and conceptualization (Atkin and Bildsten, 2017; Brozovsky et al., 2024; Bröchner et al., 2019; Bäcklund et al., 2024; Ebbesen and Bonke, 2014; Johannes et al., 2024; Nyoni et al., 2023; Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016; Signorini and Pomè, 2025; Tagliaro et al., 2021, 2024; Vigren et al., 2022; Vigren and Eriksson, 2025). Particularly, we identify theoretical categories and approaches that support future research and knowledge exchange between academia and industry.

We provide an overview of IS and IM theories, as well as FM research related to classification, effects, and standardization of DTs. We use theories to inform and position our analysis (Schwarz and Stensaker, 2016; Von Krogh et al., 2012). Although research on digitalization in FM has grown significantly, a comprehensive overview of the phenomenon is still lacking – an issue this article seeks to address.

Understanding digitalization begins with how DTs are conceptualized (Vigren, 2022). Rather than neutral tools, data and DTs are embedded in social, organizational, and technical systems (Alaimo and Kallinikos, 2022). Their nature is contextual and perspective-dependent, shaping how they are developed and used. Classical and emerging theories help explain their nature (Aaltonen and Stelmaszak, 2024; Larsen et al., 2025).

Much IS research follows the design science paradigm, which develops technological artifacts (Hevner et al., 2004). This perspective is central in digitalization, where the design of DTs profoundly shape organizational capabilities and outcomes. Complementing this are theories addressing the organizational contexts. Affordance theories (Gibson, 2015; Majchrzak and Markus, 2012) and appropriation theories (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994) focus on how users perceive and act on the possibilities technologies offer, emphasizing interactions between DTs and human agency. Systems-level perspectives situate technologies within organizational structures and processes (Orlikowski, 1992; Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010). Enterprise architecture theories (Yoo et al., 2010; Winter and Fischer, 2006), information infrastructure theories (Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010; Tilson et al., 2010; Henfridsson and Bygstad, 2013), and data ecosystem perspectives (Toorajipour et al., 2024) offer models for structuring DTs within organizations.

These frameworks provide the conceptual basis for studying how technologies are developed, understood, and applied. However, while they explain how strategies and goals are realized through technology, they offer less guidance on setting or prioritizing them – a task that depends on FM-specific industry knowledge.

It is important to examine how DTs are conceptualized within FM research, as these conceptualizations frame academic inquiry, guide innovation and influence how service providers, suppliers, and other industry actors understand and adopt DTs.

Most FM studies focus on individual DTs in isolation. Building Information Modeling (BIM), for example, has been extensively studied (Won et al., 2013). Newer research explores IoT, digital twins, AI, drones, AR/VR, blockchain, and other emerging technologies (Brozovsky et al., 2024; Redlein and Grasl, 2018). Yet, technology-focused studies often assume that adopting “technology x” will automatically deliver benefits, overlooking the challenges in their adoption. In addition, several attempts have been made to define and map DT applications and related actor groups, such as PropTech (e.g. Baum, 2017), yet, these have led to various, and at times, contrasting categorizations (Tagliaro et al., 2025). Furthermore, various consultancy reports take a generalist approach, lacking focus on FM. Therefore, the identification of which DTs and actor groups are truly relevant to the industry remains inconsistent.

Authors such as Jensen et al. (2012), Jensen (2010), Ebbesen and Bonke (2014), Ebbesen (2016) and FMgoesDIGI (2022) contributed to this debate by classifying IS in relation to FM processes and services, and by examining technology implementation and its added value. Still, existing classifications and conceptualizations of DTs in FM are insufficient in providing contextual knowledge and clear evidence of the value for money associated with adopting these technologies. Furthermore, a research gap remains in the form of a concise summary of the proposed conceptualizations and further conceptual development.

Digitalization raises important questions about how DTs shape, and are shaped by, organizations, practices, and individual behavior. Furthermore, digitalization leads to various tangible outputs, effects, and broader impacts. These implications should be measured to enhance both research and practice (Fischer et al., 2017). They also influence how successful technology implementations are perceived by those involved in the process.

Several theories explain the complex and reciprocal effects of DT implementation and use (Larsen et al., 2025). Adaptive Structuration Theory (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994) and Innovation Resistance Theory (Kaur et al., 2020) identify barriers to adoption and explain why technology projects often fail to achieve their full potential. Adoption-focused frameworks such as Absorptive Capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and Dynamic Capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000) emphasize organizations’ ability to absorb external knowledge and reconfigure resources in response to environmental shifts.

Measuring the impacts of digitalization remains challenging yet necessary, particularly as practitioners question the value of DTs. Frameworks such as success factors (DeLone and McLean, 1992) and key performance indicators (KPIs) are useful in this context. Such measures are important for evaluating whether digital investments deliver intended value and for capturing how success is perceived by different stakeholders.

Research on the effects of DTs in FM remains limited. The tangible outcomes are seldom measured, poorly assessed, and rarely documented. Nevertheless, expectations are high, particularly regarding product and service development and sustainability. Studies suggest DTs can transform products and services by reshaping data and information management (Mattarocci and Scimone, 2022; Pärn et al., 2017). DTs offer significant benefits, including interconnected processes, seamless operations, reduced human effort, and greater efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency across value chains (Pärn et al., 2017; Redlein and Grasl, 2018; Redlein and Thrainer, 2022; Saull et al., 2020). At the same time, DTs are expected to play a central role in sustainable development (Redlein and Thrainer, 2022), which is important given that buildings account for nearly 40% of global energy-related carbon emissions and 50% of all extracted materials (World Green Building Council, 2021).

However, a more structured approach to researching and managing digitalization in FM is necessary. Metrics for measuring its effects need to be developed (Fischer et al., 2017), and studies should adopt a balanced view that considers both benefits and drawbacks. Several authors have emphasized the importance of studying the social and organizational contexts in which DTs are introduced (e.g. Atkin and Bildsten, 2017; Bröchner et al., 2019; Johannes et al., 2024; Tagliaro et al., 2021). Yet, studying implementation processes require in-depth and longitudinal data (Bäcklund et al., 2024).

An important dimension concerns the processes through which DTs are standardized, scaled up, and institutionalized across organizations and industries (Yoo et al., 2005). These processes are important for translating isolated DTs and pilot projects into industry-wide norms, protocols, and practices – thereby enabling systemic digital transformation. Several theoretical perspectives help explain how this occurs.

Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003) explains how DTs are adopted by analyzing technology characteristics, social networks, and adopters. Contingency Theory (Weill and Olson, 1989) further emphasizes that DTs must align with specific organizational and environmental conditions to scale. Here too, organizational theories, such as Absorptive Capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and Dynamic Capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), offer a complementary view, focusing on organizational capabilities for standardization and scaling. Finally, Institutional Theory (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1995) situates these developments within broader social and regulatory contexts, focusing on external pressures for implementation, and legitimation and institutionalization of digital systems. These theories help explain how digital practices become embedded within the day-to-day operations of firms and sectors.

Standardization and scaling of DTs involve developing frameworks, protocols, and best practices to enable their widespread adoption. Much of this work centers on ISO and related standards. For example, ISO/TR 41016:2024 recognizes technology as integral to FM.

Similarly, the EU has introduced Smart Readiness Indicators (SRI) under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EU/2024 / 1275) and Energy Efficiency Directive (EU/2023 / 1791) to assess buildings’ ability to use smart technologies for decarbonization and comfort. A building’s “smartness” is defined as its capacity to sense, interpret, communicate, and respond to various conditions. However, SRIs remain optional, are still under testing, and emphasize energy performance while neglecting aspects such as economic feasibility – a key factor for investment decisions (Redlein and Höhenberger, 2019).

Research on the effects of standardization and the scale-up of DTs in FM remains limited. Much research focuses on the applications of specific DTs, such as BIM (Patacas et al., 2020), whereas studies demonstrating the overall value added by digitalization remain scarce. Such empirical evidence would incentivize stakeholders to adopt technologies and accelerate the digital transformation.

While theory explains how strategies are realized through technology, it offers less guidance on how such goals should be set and prioritized. Therefore, FM-specific knowledge is important for defining objectives. We invited practitioners to contribute to the research process and adopted an exploratory, phenomenon-driven approach (Schwarz and Stensaker, 2016; Von Krogh et al., 2012).

We followed a methodology similar to Ritala and Gustafsson (2018). We conducted two online workshops in 2022 and 2023 with leading FM scholars, followed by a third in-person workshop with industry professionals at the EuroFM 2023 conference in Istanbul. The industry experts provided evidence of technology implementation and are directly influenced by research outcomes. Because FM is a practice-oriented field, including industry experts is essential for developing a relevant and actionable research agenda. Moreover, these workshops enhance the validity of the research agenda. In total, approximately 20 participants attended the workshops, each lasting 1–1.5 h. The workshops were documented through handwritten notes, which were qualitatively analyzed.

Figure 1 presents the workshop discussions across three central themes: classifications and conceptualizations of DTs in FM, the effects of DTs in FM, and the standardization and scaling of DTs in organizations and the industry. The findings section is structured around these themes.

The discussions on IT perspectives converged around three main aspects. First, IT architecture models should be studied to understand how new IS integrate with existing ones, and how DTs can create value when used synergistically. For example, AI relies on data, so research should explore how AI can access and utilize data sources. Furthermore, FM is dependent on new data ecosystems, where multiple data sources, actors and governance mechanisms influence how DTs are understood, shaped, and adopted.

Second, Technology Maturity refers to frameworks such as the Gartner Hype Cycle (Gartner, 2018; Dedehayir and Steinert, 2016) and Technology Readiness Levels (Mankins, 1995), both of which have been applied in FM contexts. Such categorizations reflect a pragmatic need to make sense of DTs by organizing them under such labels. However, our critique is that these categories often lack the nuance needed to reflect specific FM services or use cases. Systematic frameworks for assessing the maturity and adoption levels of DTs in FM remain limited.

Third, the role of the supply chain in DT adoption was discussed. On one hand, Data Supply Chains are essential for identifying and describing data sources and requirements from client organizations. On another hand, the Technology Supply Chain was discussed as a classification specifically focused on DTs.

These categorizations were considered important by the workshop participants. Therefore, they may advance research and support technology implementation and use. Particularly, they may improve alignment within supply chains and help overcome barriers related to interoperability and IS harmonization.

The discussions on business development in FM identified four distinct branches for conceptualization. Business Type categorizes technologies based on supplier-client relationships, such as Business-to-Business, Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Administration, helping to distinguish markets, actor types, processes, and value creation mechanisms. Scalability examines levels of expansion. Different types of technologies and kinds of suppliers exhibit varying opportunities for scaling and hindering factors. For example, technologies relying on mobile apps and cloud-based infrastructure were considered more scalable than legacy software. Risks address potential threats associated with technologies. For example, smart home security software faces different vulnerabilities compared to traditional mechanical locks. Furthermore, risks can be categorized into business, technical, operational, and regulatory risks. Business Outcomes highlight the value propositions offered by technology suppliers, including operational efficiency, customer experience, competitive advantage, and return on investment (ROI). However, Business Outcomes also include deviations from these value propositions, which are due to unintended consequences that may impact overall performance and stakeholder satisfaction.

The discussion on value chain perspectives highlighted the need for classifications related to Actors, FM Service Processes, and Building Life Cycle. What is common to these is who is involved, what is done, and when it occurs. Actors focus on actor types, opening discussions on actor roles and the demand and supply dynamics. FM Service Processes consider specific processes where technologies could be applied, facilitating practical performance comparisons between different DTs. Building Life Cycle provides a holistic perspective on the integration of DTs at different stages of a building’s life cycle. Together, these categorizations may improve research and practice related to the processes in which technologies ought to be implemented.

The discussions on effects focused on positive impacts, risks and myths, barriers and enablers, and coping strategies. Participants emphasized that, although digitalization is generally beneficial for FM, significant obstacles to effective implementation remain.

Workshop participants highlighted that ROI significantly influences DT adoption, though research on economic factors remains scarce. Low incentives and limited experience with past investments reduce motivation for DT adoption, and investment analysis is often challenging. Participants also emphasized that digitalization can address labor shortages, improve efficiency, save time, and enhance sustainability, particularly in energy use. Overall, they recognized the positive effects but also expressed concerns about potential negative impacts and unintended consequences.

Workshop participants expressed concerns about automation’s impact on FM employees. Employers need to be attentive to the needs and concerns of their workforce. Participants acknowledged that technologies often fail to meet workers’ practical needs, outpace their ability to adapt, and create organizational tensions, highlighting the need for skill development. Some fear job replacement, which can erode trust in technology. Research is needed to address these risks and myths, prepare stakeholders, and support effective responses to change.

Cultural and social norms influence technology adoption. FM organizations with rigid routines and risk-averse practices may be slow to adopt DTs, while those emphasizing continuous improvement and flexibility may integrate DTs more effectively. This highlights the importance of a supportive organizational culture. Management-level barriers, such as rigid procurement policies or unclear data governance, hinder digitalization. Also, adoption rates vary by region due to infrastructure and investment readiness. Inter-organizational dynamics shape adoption, as leading organizations can drive innovation. In addition, although PropTech startups are seen as promising innovators, participants noted challenges in implementing their technologies and scaling new products at the firm level.

Participants emphasized human-centric thinking and the human–machine relationship as key to DT adoption. User-friendly systems that provide actionable insights can help staff adopt new tools. Starting small with a step-by-step approach was suggested as an important strategy. Furthermore, increasing understanding and capabilities in digitalization, along with effective change management were considered essential. For instance, involving frontline FM staff early in technology selection can reduce resistance and improve DT adoption.

The discussions focused on opportunities for standardization and obstacles to scale technologies. Aligning diverse stakeholders and varying organizational capabilities remains challenging.

Participants highlighted issues for digitalization and especially emphasized the urgent need for exchanging data. They identified poor interoperability and fragmented IS as major issues, causing knowledge fragmentation, duplicated efforts, inefficiencies and communication gaps across buildings and organizations. For example, service providers often use separate software systems without shared information. Fragmented services and software hinder standardization and scaling efforts. In addition, certain software systems exhibit high path dependency, and ISO standards tend to direct development within silos. Participants suggested lean, adaptable IS development and noted that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often lag in complying with standardization. Technology could help harmonize differing interpretations of concepts and data.

Workshop participants highlighted unresolved digitalization issues, focusing on the gap between practical fieldwork and its digital interface. FM is labor-intensive, low-margin, and client-driven service business, with limited incentives to innovate. Its focus on daily operations and reliance on physical spaces challenges DT adoption. They emphasized that FM cannot drive innovation alone, as it depends on the construction stage, requiring a holistic perspective across the BE. Challenges include defining the practical value of digital innovation, General Data Protection Regulation and privacy restrictions, and limited datasets compared to other industries. Participants also noted difficulties in standardizing FM activities due to the absence of cross-professional definitions and standards across service domains and property types. They suggested learning from other industries and fostering industry–research dialogue to accelerate digital adoption.

In the following, we synthesize theoretical and empirical perspectives and outline avenues for future research. The findings show opportunities and concerns familiar from IS and IM research. Participants emphasized learning from other industries, making it natural to apply these insights to FM.

First, questions about the design of IT artifacts (Hevner et al., 2004) are central to IS research and have likewise dominated FM digitalization research (Won et al., 2013; Patacas et al., 2020; Brozovsky et al., 2024). Workshop participants stressed identifying technologies truly relevant to FM practice and their economic implications, emphasizing the need to strategize and prioritize based on FM needs.

Second, perspectives on system integration, enterprise architectures (Yoo et al., 2010; Winter and Fischer, 2006), and information infrastructures (Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010; Tilson et al., 2010; Henfridsson and Bygstad, 2013) are central to IS but remain underrepresented in FM literature, with only a few exceptions (Pärn et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2017; Redlein and Grasl, 2018; Redlein and Thrainer, 2022). Participants highlighted the need to understand how new IS integrate with existing ones, ensure interoperability and connectivity across data sources, and assess the economic motivations for system integration. This represents a significant research gap.

Third, IS and IM research have long recognized that data and DTs are not value-neutral but embedded in social, organizational, and technical systems (Alaimo and Kallinikos, 2022; Orlikowski, 1992; Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010). In contrast, FM research often overlooks these contextual factors, despite several authors highlighting their importance (e.g. Atkin and Bildsten, 2017; Bröchner et al., 2019; Johannes et al., 2024; Tagliaro et al., 2021). Further research could provide a more nuanced understanding of technology implementation (Bäcklund et al., 2024), particularly by identifying shared and distinct challenges across FM actors, buildings, and services. A key pragmatic concern is aligning organizational needs with data and technology sources, where value chain and data ecosystem theories may offer useful guidance (Toorajipour et al., 2024).

Fourth, a related yet distinct challenge lies in overcoming organizational and cultural barriers that hinder DT adoption. This was a major theme among practitioners but has received only limited attention in FM research (FMgoesDIGI, 2022; Bäcklund et al., 2024; Vigren et al., 2022; Oesterreich and Teuteberg, 2016). Other sectors, however, offer a rich body of research that can inform FM (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1995), highlighting user-centric approaches (Gibson, 2015; Majchrzak and Markus, 2012) and value appropriation (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994).

Fifth, practitioners noted the importance of measuring innovation, as ROI and other metrics strongly influence DT adoption and help justify investments. Frameworks such as success factors (DeLone and McLean, 1992) and KPIs on user satisfaction, information quality, and net benefits can support this. Yet, the tangible effects of DT implementation are seldom measured, poorly assessed, and rarely documented with empirical evidence. For example, the impacts of digitalization on product and service development (Mattarocci and Scimone, 2022), as well as on sustainability and energy efficiency, require further validation.

Sixth, the standardization and scaling of DTs in FM remains understudied, despite long-standing research in IS and IM (Yoo et al., 2005; Rogers, 2003; Weill and Olson, 1989; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 1995). While much attention is given to standards such as ISO, SRIs and legislation, less is known about how these are adopted within organizations, the industry-wide bottlenecks to adoption, and challenges posed by competing, incompatible, or missing standards (Nyoni et al., 2023). Overall, research on the effects of standardization and the scaling is limited.

Seventh, and finally, AI is reshaping how users search for information and solve problems, increasing efficiency and creating new opportunities, and thus warrants heightened research attention. Integrating AI into organizational processes takes longer. Frameworks developed for other DTs are likely still useful for understanding AI-related change. Identifying user needs and use cases remains a priority (Jensen et al., 2012; Jensen, 2010; Redlein and Grasl, 2018; Redlein and Thrainer, 2022; Redlein and Höhenberger, 2019; Chotipanich, 2004).

This paper identifies conceptualizations that hold merit for further research. Table 1 summarizes the key themes, and outlines examples of research questions and theoretical perspectives.

While many conceptualizations of digitalization are familiar from other sectors and discussed in FM practice, current FM research often lacks these perspectives in relation to digitalization. Further research is needed to codify industry practices, deepen theorization, and develop research-driven guidelines for practice.

The proposed conceptualizations help make sense of digitalization as a complex phenomenon, enabling interpretation through complementary perspectives. They open avenues for research on DT implementation and outcome measurement, including assessing positive effects, risks, barriers, myths, enablers, and coping strategies.

A pragmatic research agenda should involve practitioners to validate and prioritize directions, which is particularly important in FM as an interdisciplinary, practice-oriented field. Ideas in this article aim to establish a common understanding of digitalization principles, definitions, goals, and categories, supporting coordination between research and industry development. Such frameworks are valuable for FM curricula, serving as pedagogical tools.

However, these findings remain exploratory (Schwarz and Stensaker, 2016; Von Krogh et al., 2012). Limitations relate to the workshop methodology and limited participant selection. Further consolidation of existing research and additional empirical and theoretical work are needed. The framework provided can guide new research avenues and foster interdisciplinary exchange.

This article contributes to shaping the FM digitalization research agenda. Building on research on FM value creation (Jensen et al., 2012; Jensen, 2010; Ebbesen and Bonke, 2014; Ebbesen, 2016; FMgoesDIGI, 2022; Vigren et al., 2024), it emphasizes that digitalization should align with FM value rather than remain an isolated technical issue. Studies by Bröchner et al. (2019) and Atkin and Bildsten (2017) highlight digitalization’s role in industry development, and Patacas et al. (2020) and Wetzel and Thabet (2015) explored BIM applications in FM.

This article complements and extends this prior research with new perspectives, taking steps toward establishing a research agenda for digitalization in FM. This is important to meet the demand for research-based knowledge in the industry.

The authors wish to thank Dr. Alice Paola Pomè, a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Architecture, Built Environment, and Construction Engineering at Politecnico di Milano, for her advice during the research process, particularly her assistance with the workshops. The authors also thank the two reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments, which helped improve the manuscript. The authors have used ChatGPT-5 mini to check the clarity of the language and grammar in the final manuscript.