Clash reports across most Indian projects show a genuinely consistent pattern in which discipline pairing generates the most clashes, and it's worth knowing this pattern before allocating coordination review time evenly across every discipline pair by default, which tends to under-resource the pairing that actually needs the most attention.
| Discipline pairing | Typical relative clash volume | Most common driver |
|---|---|---|
| Architectural vs Structural | Highest single pairing, typically | Structural elements (beams, columns) conflicting with architectural openings, ceiling heights, or layout changes made after structural design |
| MEP vs Structural | High | Service routing through structural elements not accounted for in structural design |
| MEP vs Architectural | Moderate | Ceiling void and riser space conflicts |
| Architectural vs Architectural (internal) | Low | Mostly internal modelling errors, not genuine design conflicts |
Why Architectural-Structural Clashes Dominate the Numbers
Architectural design frequently continues evolving even after structural design has progressed considerably - layout changes, opening adjustments, a client-driven revision to a space plan - and this pattern is structurally more likely to generate conflicts than MEP does, since MEP is typically coordinated after both architecture and structure have settled further, giving it less exposure to the kind of late architectural change that drives the highest clash volume in the table above.
A Scenario Showing Why This Pattern Argues for Locking Structural Decisions Earlier
Picture a project where the architectural team, well into design development, revises a floor's layout to accommodate a late client request - moving a wall, adjusting a ceiling height in one zone - after the structural grid for that floor has already been substantially finalised. This kind of late architectural revision is exactly the mechanism generating the highest-volume clash category shown above, since the structural elements weren't designed with this specific late change in mind. This pattern is a genuine argument for locking structural grid and major structural elements earlier in the design sequence specifically, since late structural changes cascade disproportionately into this highest-volume clash category compared to equivalent late changes in other disciplines.
Why Proportional Review Time Beats an Even Split
Coordination review time allocated proportionally to this typical clash volume pattern - heavier on architectural-structural review specifically, rather than splitting attention evenly across every discipline pairing - tends to catch issues considerably faster than an evenly split review schedule that treats every pairing as equally likely to generate problems, when the data consistently shows they aren't.