Outcome
Catch design risk in CSA
The structural miss costs more time than the services clash.
Coordination attention goes to services, because that is where the drawing density is. The delays land somewhere else. A slab tolerance the specification does not permit, a structural member that fouls a route, an architectural setout that does not match the grid - these are the ones that stop a floor rather than reroute a duct, and they are hardest to fix once concrete is involved.
CIM reads civil, structural and architectural against the specifications and against the other disciplines on every issue, and returns the conflicts cited to the sheet.
A related one is the change made on site in 2D and never carried into the model. It coordinates cleanly in the drawings everyone is looking at and clashes months later during installation. Comparing every revision against the last is what surfaces it.
Before CIM
- Coordination effort concentrates on services.
- Structural and architectural misses surface late.
- 2D site changes never reach the model.
With CIM
- CSA read against the specs and the other disciplines.
- Conflicts cited to the sheet before issue.
- Every revision compared, so 2D-only changes show up.