B
BIMKit
All BIM Uses
DesignIn depth

Design Review

Rà soát & Duyệt thiết kế

Review and approve models visually with the owner, consultants, regulatory authorities, and stakeholders. Comments tracked and managed via BCF format.

Common tools

Revit, Navisworks, Forma Design

Value delivered

Owners understand design visually without reading 2D drawings — reduces post-approval changes

Adoption in Vietnam

Growing in Vietnam — especially in public investment appraisal and fire safety approval workflows.

Level of Information Need (LOIN)

G = Geometry · A = Alphanumeric · D = Documentation (ISO 7817-1:2024 method). A blank cell means this use sets no specific requirement for that discipline/stage.

DisciplineConceptSchematicDevelopedTechnicalAs-built / Operation
ArchitectureG2·A1·D0G3·A1·D1
StructureG2·A1·D0G3·A1·D1
MechanicalG2·A1·D0G3·A1·D1
ElectricalG2·A1·D0G3·A1·D1
PlumbingG2·A1·D0G3·A1·D1

Critical stages: Schematic · Developed

Rationale: Visual / stakeholder review (incl. VR/AR walkthroughs). Geometry-led: G2→G3 for spatial and design-intent verification. A1 sufficient — only type/category labels needed for client presentations. D1 at ST3 links design criteria / project brief for sign-off. No A2 required because review does not itself execute analysis.

What it really is

Design Review is the structured process in which stakeholders — appointing party, end users, consultants, contractors — examine the BIM model to evaluate and approve the design: brief compliance, function, spatial quality, sightlines, lighting, safety, constructability. Unlike merely "viewing a 3D model", it has evaluation criteria, an owner, minutes, and every comment captured as a traceable issue in BCF format. The output is not a "nice or ugly" verdict but recorded design decisions, assigned and tracked to closure. A review may run on screen, in a coordination room, or in virtual reality so non-technical parties can experience the space at full scale before it is built.

When to use

At design approval gates — concept, basic and detailed design — and for works with high functional or aesthetic demands: hospitals, airports, hotels, public spaces. Especially useful when a non-technical appointing party or end user must decide quickly without being able to read technical drawings.

Prerequisites

  • A model at the LOIN appropriate to the review question — depends directly on Design Authoring
  • A defined review criteria checklist and clear session objectives
  • A BCF issue platform and a session facilitator
  • The right participants, including someone with decision authority

Inputs

REQFederated or discipline model to review

Task team · IFC / định dạng gốc

REQReview criteria and checklist

Appointing / lead appointed party · .xlsx / .pdf

REQDesign brief and functional requirements

Appointing party · .pdf

OPTCodes and standards to check against

Appointing party · .pdf

OPTOpen issues carried over from the previous round

Lead appointed party · .bcf

Outputs

Review issue register

.bcfDiscipline task teams

Accepted when: Each issue carries a model location, viewpoint image, assignee and status

Review minutes and design decisions

.pdfAppointing party

Accepted when: Signed off by the authorised decision-maker

Model updated per the decisions

IFC / định dạng gốcForma Data Management

Accepted when: Issues closed and verified against the updated model

General workflow

1

Define objectives and review criteria

Agree the questions to answer — function, aesthetics, or code compliance — and the LOIN required to answer them credibly.

BIM Manager + appointing party · Review criteria checklistReview session plan

2

Prepare the model and viewpoints

Federate the model, pre-build saved viewpoints, sections and a walkthrough script so the session is not spent navigating.

BIM Coordinator · Navisworks · Forma Design CollaborationReview-ready model

3

Run rule-based compliance checks

Run functional and code rule sets: clear headroom, escape routes, accessibility. Whatever a machine can check should not consume the session.

BIM Coordinator · Solibri · Navisworks ManageCompliance report

4

Run the review session

Present the model to stakeholders; optionally use VR for full-scale spatial experience; capture comments as issues live rather than on paper for later entry.

Facilitator + stakeholders · Forma · Navisworks · VR viewerRaw comment list

5

Normalise and assign issues

Normalise each issue: location, viewpoint image, priority, assignee, due date. An issue without an owner is an issue that will never close.

BIM Coordinator · Forma Design Collaboration (BCF) · BIMcollabAssigned issue register

6

Resolve and update the model

Task teams revise the design per the agreed decisions and move issues to Resolved with a note on how.

Task team · RevitUpdated model

7

Verify and close issues

The coordinator verifies against the updated model before moving issues to Closed. Without verification, Resolved is only a promise.

BIM Coordinator + appointing party · Forma Data ManagementDesign approval record

Diagram

Appointing party / Users
1Define review criteria
4Review session (VR / screen)
8Approve and close (Closed)
BIM Coordinator
2Prepare model and viewpoints
3Rule-based compliance check
7Verify against updated model
Task team
6Revise design → Resolved
BCF / CDE platform
5Create BCF issue: location + image + assignee

Not met → reopen the issue, back to the task team

Common pitfalls

Verbal comments forgotten; revisions missed

Cause: No structured issues — only email or prose minutes

Fix: Require every comment to become a BCF issue with location and assignee

The review produces wrong decisions that must be redone

Cause: The model does not meet the LOIN the question requires

Fix: Agree the required LOIN before each session; defer questions the data cannot yet answer

Long review meetings that conclude nothing

Cause: No evaluation criteria and nobody with decision authority in the room

Fix: Prepare the criteria checklist; invite the authorised decision-maker

Issues pile up and nobody closes them

Cause: No due dates and no verification step

Fix: Assign due dates; require verification before Closed

Measuring effectiveness

Issues raised per sessionInternal target

Count BCF issues created in the session

Benchmark: no independent benchmark — set an internal target

On-time issue closure rateInternal target

Issues closed by their due date divided by total

Benchmark: no independent benchmark — set an internal target

Mean time to close an issueInternal target

From issue creation to Closed

Benchmark: no independent benchmark — set an internal target

Design errors caught early by reviewAcademic

Compare construction-stage error counts with and without model-based review

Benchmark: A Vietnamese study (IOP 2020) found 36 design conflicts in a substation control house originally designed in 2D CAD

Legal basis

Art. 8(5) provides that the competent construction authority uses BIM data for appraisal, including checking compliance with codes and standards — the legal basis for model-based review. Art. 8(4) provides that the model accepted by the appointing party and published on the CDE is the reference of record.

Sources

OfficialAuthority uses BIM data for appraisal; the CDE model is the reference of record NĐ 217/2026/NĐ-CP, Điều 8 khoản 4 và khoản 5 (2026)
Academic36 design conflicts found in a Vietnamese substation control house Quan T. Nguyen et al., IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 869, 022038 (2020)
OfficialBCF format for exchanging issues between applications buildingSMART International (2024)
AcademicEvaluation framework for BIM-based VR applications in the design phase Journal of Computational Design and Engineering (Oxford) (2021)

Only official sources (legislation, standards) and peer-reviewed academic work are cited. No vendor marketing figures or press sources. Reference only — does not replace legal advice.