Building Information Modelling (BIM) has become a standard practice in the UK’s construction industry. It is widely adopted by construction companies and contractors across the country. Yet, many contractors still treat clash detection as the finish line for BIM Coordination Services instead of the starting point.
As a result, the project suffers avoidable delays, costly rework, frustration among site teams, and visible coordination gaps.
Often, contractors consider running a clash test in Navisworks to be the peak of coordination. But true coordination is much more than that. It goes beyond identifying inter-model geometric conflicts. Essentially, it is about ensuring design intent, sequencing, constructability and project delivery are aligned across every discipline. Here's where many UK contractors are getting it wrong.
<H2> Clash Detection = Box Ticking (Only)
Clash detection isn’t merely about ticking a checkbox, nor does it equal coordination success. Practically, clash detection only identifies the overlapping of model elements. It does not resolve an underlying concern. Besides, it does not confirm if systems are buildable, accessible or sequenced appropriately. On paper, a project may show zero clashes. But on-site, it may fail.
For example, prefabricated modules may be digitally fitted. However, they may prove to be a misfit on the actual site. Software outputs help enhance decision-making. But you cannot rely on them alone. Effective BIM coordination demands expert, informed decision-making.
<H2> Focusing Only on Hard Clashes
Often, contractors focus only on hard clashes. While important, modern coordination goes beyond hard clashes. It requires careful consideration of various other factors such as soft clashes, clearance zones, installation tolerances, access needs, temporary activities, future maintenance accessibility and health and safety parameters.
For instance, plant room coordination may always pass clash detection reviews. But operationally, it can fail because the team failed to consider maintenance clearances during coordination. Such an approach can lead to rework, project disruption and a frustrated facility team after handover.
Leaving Coordination Too Late
Delayed coordination is yet another crucial concern in the construction sector. Many contractors treat clash detection as a single gatekeeping event timed to the end of RIBA Stage 3 or Stage 4. But design is fluid. Hence, it evolves constantly.
If a master model is federated only and scanned once before procurement, it becomes a historical snapshot with zero live tolerance to what is actually built.
True coordination demands a consistent weekly cadence, fortnightly federated reviews, collaborative solutions and constant re-checking as the sub-contractor specialist matures.
Separating Design Coordination from Construction Reality
A coordinated model is incomplete or could be practically useless if it ignores how the building will actually be constructed. Hence, many coordination activities fail. Often, contractors review the model in isolation from sequencing, logistics, access routes, lifting needs and installation approach. Construction teams enter late into coordination discussions. Complex schemes need coordination processes that reflect real construction conditions. Some concerns to consider include:
- The possibility of installing the system in sequence
- Sufficient access for labour and equipment
- Consideration of temporary works
- Safe manoeuvring of prefabricated elements into position
- The alignment of the programme with the coordinated model
Neglecting these points during discussions can make the project look perfect on paper but flawed in reality.
Neglecting Information Coordinating
Considering BIM coordination, a geometric element is another mistake contractors commit. Information consistency holds equal importance. Many projects encounter disconnected data, inconsistent naming conventions, duplicate model elements and ambiguity concerning ownership responsibilities. The result is confusion concerning design, procurement, and among site delivery teams.
For example, asset information may remain incomplete. Model versions may conflict with issued drawings. True BIM Coordination Services focus on aligning geometry and information.
Depending Too Much on Software Instead of Process
Technology is an aid to a particular solution. It isn’t the solution itself. Usually, contractors invest heavily in BIM software. But they underestimate the significance of coordination workflows, governance and communication. Software identifies concerns. But it is people who solve them. Yet, it isn’t possible without successful BIM coordination that relies on clear responsibility matrices, timely issue resolution, structured review meetings, well-defined coordination workflows, and consistent communication between trades.
Measuring Success By Clash Numbers Instead of Site Results
Some contractors still measure BIM success in terms of the number of clashes detected or closed each week. But the real measure of coordination is what happens on the actual site. These factors include installation conflicts, reduced rework, improved programme certainty, safer construction sequencing, better trade collaboration, and smoother handover.
Final Words!
A contractor is bound to make costly mistakes if their understanding of coordination is confined to clash detection. Hence, prudent contractors are those who use coordination to enhance real project outcomes on site – and not just paper! Partnering with professional BIM coordination services helps.
This is where Bimacme steps in. We are MEP BIM Coordination experts with years of experience and a team of handpicked specialists who understand the UK construction market and its requirements.
Sign in to leave a comment.