Abstract
Clash resolution is widely recognized as one of the most consequential applications of Building Information Modelling (BIM), providing multidisciplinary teams with the capacity to detect and mitigate design conflicts well in advance of construction. Resolving clashes during the design phase yields substantial dividends in the form of reduced rework, cost optimization, enhanced collaboration, and greater certainty in project delivery outcomes. Nevertheless, empirical evidence indicates that the process remains fragmented and inconsistent. Automated clash-detection engines could generate excessive volumes of false positives and irrelevant issues, while resolution workflows are still characterized by time-consuming, iterative, and labour-intensive procedures heavily reliant on individual expertise. Additional impediments, including fragmented disciplinary models, weak interdisciplinary collaboration, interoperability deficiencies, inconsistent application of Level of Detail (LOD), and generally low BIM maturity, compound the difficulty of achieving efficient coordination. This research consolidates empirical insights from practice-driven investigations and prior scholarly contributions to interrogate the persistent limitations constraining the robustness and operational reliability of BIM-based clash resolution. It proposes an integrated suite of interventions encompassing refined clash filtration and prioritization logics, harmonized LOD and data-exchange standards, structured capacity enhancement, organizational and cultural transformation, alongside hybridized automation workflows. By tackling both algorithmic and institutional discontinuities, the study formulates a practice-oriented framework that advances discourse beyond reactive detection toward proactive clash avoidance, providing rigorous pathways for subsequent academic inquiry and industry-wide implementation.