Average clash resolution (from 3–5 days)
Stakeholder review cycle (from ~10 days)
Manual reporting workload (from ~8 hrs)
Clash detection is a solved problem. Navisworks has done it for years. The challenge – the one that quietly burns weeks of engineering time on every large EPC project – is managing clash resolution across disciplines, teams, and model versions over a multi-year lifecycle. What off-the-shelf clash detection software can't do
A clash between a pipe run and a structural beam needs to be assigned to the right discipline based on project-specific rules and contract boundaries. Generic tools flag the clash; they don't apply the ownership logic that makes it actionable.
When five disciplines update models in parallel, tracking which combination of revisions produced which clash – and whether the clash is still valid after a model update – requires version-aware clash management. Standard BIM viewers don't provide this.
No one knows which model version is current. Clashes get resolved against outdated geometry. The same issues reappear because someone loaded old files.
Resolving a clash isn't a single action: discussion, design decision, model update, verification. Capturing that workflow with timestamps, responsible parties, and a decision trail requires structured tooling that spreadsheets and review platforms can't reliably deliver.
Hundreds of active clashes across multiple disciplines, with reporting by discipline, severity, resolution rate, and model revision. Manual reporting consumes the engineering hours the tool was supposed to save.
Navisworks, Solibri and Revizto detect clashes reliably, and on most projects they are the entire answer. The question is narrower: at what point does your problem stop being detection?
| Off-the-shelf (Navisworks, Solibri, Revizto) | Built for your project | |
|---|---|---|
| Geometric clash detection | Industry standard | Not replaced – we import from your existing engine |
| Ownership by contract boundary | Manual triage, every time | Encoded once from your responsibility matrix |
| Clash validity across parallel revisions | Re-run and re-triage | The register knows which revision pair produced each clash |
| Client’s contractual reporting format | Export, then rebuild | Reporting becomes a query |
| Commercial model | Per-seat subscription | One-off build plus annual support |
The last four rows are not feature gaps. No general-purpose product ships with your contract’s ownership matrix – that is different on every project. Which is why, for most teams, the right answer is a licence, not a build.
It stops being enough when:
Bring your coordination setup to a 30-minute call – disciplines, model owners, current toolchain, rough clash volume. We’ll map it against the table above and tell you straight whether a custom layer is justified. If the answer is “Navisworks plus a tighter process”, that is the answer you’ll get.
A centralised 3D model review and clash management platform built around five components. Each one closes a specific gap that Navisworks and BIM 360 leave open.
Automatically imports clash data from Navisworks and Revit. Categorizes every issue by type, location, discipline, and severity. Applies your project-specific ownership rules – not generic logic.
Controlled model uploads and rollbacks with full change history and role-based access. Every team works from the current revision. The platform makes it structurally impossible to coordinate against an outdated model.
Engineers and stakeholders access clash data and model issues from any location – design office, client office, construction site. Review cycles that previously required everyone in one room now run asynchronously.
Visual dashboards show clash trends, resolution rates, and overdue items across all disciplines in a single view. Automated notifications alert assigned users when a clash is raised, updated, or approaching deadline. Manual follow-up disappears from the coordination workflow.
Each clash carries a status (Open / In Progress / Resolved / Verified), a responsible owner, and a resolution deadline. Complete logs make audit preparation a query, not a reconstruction effort.
Real metrics from EPC projects that deployed our clash coordination platform.
Reviews that required everyone in one room now run asynchronously, from the design office, the client office or site. This is the figure the case study documents.
Before the platform, resolving a single clash took three to five days – mostly waiting on unclear ownership and cross-team messaging with no decision trail. Ownership routing and deadline tracking remove the waiting, not the engineering.
Clashes are deduplicated and prioritised before anyone is assigned, so engineers work a real queue rather than re-triaging the same geometric conflict across model revisions.
Reports by discipline, severity, resolution rate and model revision come out of the register. Audit preparation stopped being a manual reconstruction effort.
Real-time cross-discipline coordination reduced site rework and the cost of late-stage design changes. Clear ownership and deadlines improved accountability without management escalation. We don't put a percentage on those – isolating a platform's contribution to site rework on a live EPC project isn't something anyone can measure honestly, and we'd rather show you the numbers we can stand behind.
Phased deployment that proves value before scaling across your organization.
We analyze your current clash coordination processes, quantify time spent, and identify automation opportunities.
What’s included:
Deliverable: Coordination assessment report with current-state analysis, automation opportunities, and business case for platform deployment.
Limited deployment on a single project that proves the platform works and validates ROI before full rollout.
What’s included:
Deliverable: Working platform deployed on pilot project with measured time savings, clash resolution improvements, and validated ROI for full deployment decision.
Enterprise-wide rollout with advanced features, multi-project support, and organizational change management.
What’s included:
Investment range factors: Number of concurrent projects, CAD platforms, user count, customization requirements, and integration complexity.
Continuous platform support, feature enhancements, and evolution as your coordination needs grow.
What’s included:
Proven in deployment: Navisworks and Autodesk Revit – the clash sources on the gas processing facility.
Supported: AVEVA E3D, Tekla Structures, AutoCAD Plant 3D, Intergraph Smart 3D. Federation for these is built during the pilot against your models, and that work is scoped explicitly rather than assumed.
Your teams keep working in their native environments. ClashFlow sits above them.
Proven in deployment: Navisworks and Autodesk Revit – the clash sources on the gas processing facility.
Supported: AVEVA E3D, Tekla Structures, AutoCAD Plant 3D, Intergraph Smart 3D. Federation for these is built during the pilot against your models, and that work is scoped explicitly rather than assumed.
Navisworks detects clashes. ClashFlow manages their resolution. The difference is operational: Navisworks produces a list of geometric conflicts. ClashFlow takes that list (or runs its own detection on model check-in), eliminates duplicates, applies project-specific filtering and prioritization rules, assigns each clash to the responsible engineer, tracks the full resolution workflow, verifies fixes against updated models, and generates audit-ready reports. On a recent gas processing facility project, this operational layer reduced clash resolution time by 80%.
Yes. ClashFlow’s web interface provides 3D model visualization, clash status tracking, and reporting dashboards without requiring any CAD software license. Project managers, clients, and discipline leads review and approve through a browser. Field teams use mobile access to check clash status and upload site photos. Only the underlying detection engine requires CAD platform access.
Each clash is automatically routed to the responsible discipline and specific engineer based on configurable rules: element type, location zone, contract scope, or a custom ownership matrix that reflects your project’s organizational structure. Resolution tracking captures discussion threads, design decisions, and model updates with full audit trail. Dashboards show coordination performance by discipline, making bottlenecks visible before they delay the project.
Assessment takes 1–2 weeks. Pilot deployment on a single project runs 4–6 weeks and covers 2–3 model revision cycles – enough to validate ROI with real data. Full enterprise deployment takes 2–4 months depending on the number of projects, CAD platforms, and integration complexity. Most clients make the pilot-to-full decision within one revision cycle after seeing measured time savings.
We build it for you. The five components are a proven architecture, not a shrink-wrapped product – the clash register, ownership routing rules, version control and reporting are configured to your discipline structure, contract boundaries and client reporting requirements. You get a deployment your organisation owns, not seats you rent.
Book a 30-minute technical call. We'll review your current coordination workflow, identify where automation produces measurable time savings, and show how the ClashFlow architecture maps to your project structure.
