BIM Cannot Fix a Poorly Coordinated Design

A duct can be perfectly modeled in BIM (Building Information Modeling) and still be routed through the wrong location.

That may sound contradictory, especially given how often BIM is discussed as a tool for design coordination. The model allows teams to combine disciplines, visualize building systems, and identify clashes before they reach the jobsite.

But finding a clash on-site does not resolve it. That is where a part of the work begins that no software can do on its own: understanding the problem and deciding what needs to change.

The conflict rarely starts in the model

In many cases, when a clash is discovered in the field, it has already been developing within the design for some time.

The architectural team defined one solution. The structural team developed another. MEP systems needed to occupy the same space. Each discipline may be correct when considered independently, yet the three decisions may not work together. It is precisely at the interfaces between disciplines that many coordination problems arise, as research on BIM-based design coordination has shown. (Source: Mehrbod et al., “BIM-based building design coordination: processes, bottlenecks, and considerations,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.)

A pipe runs through a beam. The specified equipment lacks adequate maintenance clearance. The service shaft cannot accommodate all the required systems. A necessary opening for utility routing was not accounted for in the structural design.

BIM helps teams identify these situations before construction begins. But identifying them is only the starting point.

The model identifies the clash. The coordination team must make the decision.

This point often gets overlooked in discussions about BIM coordination.

The software can flag two elements occupying the same space. It cannot decide on its own which one should move.

If a pipe needs to be rerouted, is there enough room to do so? Will the new route interfere with another discipline? If an opening needs to be created in a structural element, has that solution been properly assessed? If a piece of equipment is relocated, will the required access for installation, operation, and maintenance still be available?

These are design decisions, and some require going back a step, consulting another discipline, and revisiting a solution that had already seemed settled.

It is this process of analysis, decision-making, and revision that turns separate models into a genuinely coordinated design.

BIM is a coordination tool, not a substitute for coordination

The real benefit lies in identifying these situations before they become field problems.

To achieve that, the models must be up to date, the disciplines must work with compatible information, and identified clashes must lead to clear decisions. Someone needs to review the issue, discuss it with the relevant teams, define the solution, and ensure that it is incorporated into the design documents.

Without this process, having a three-dimensional model does not mean having a well-coordinated design.

Ultimately, the goal of BIM should not simply be to reach a point where the software reports no clashes. What matters to construction is reaching the jobsite with interfaces resolved, decisions made, and a design that can be built without relying on the field to discover what failed to be coordinated.