Build it once in the model, so you do not build it twice on site.
Every project we take on is modelled before construction begins. This is the firm's core differentiator and the mechanism behind the 10–15% construction cost saving we quote — not a general claim about technology, but the accumulated cost of conflicts that never reached site.
A crane runway crossing a duct route, a machine foundation clashing with a drainage run, a service drop landing inside a machine footprint: each of these costs an afternoon to resolve in a model. On site, each costs rework, a variation order and programme.
Structure, services and process equipment are modelled together and checked against each other before anything is procured. Vendor equipment drawings are brought into the same model, so foundation positions, utility connection points and maintenance clearances are verified against the building rather than assumed.
The clashes worth catching are rarely the obvious ones. They are the maintenance access that disappears once the cable tray is routed, or the crane hook approach that cannot reach the furnace because a duct was moved 400mm during detailing.
Modelling to a higher level of detail than a decision requires is wasted effort, and modelling to a lower one gives false confidence. Concept-stage massing and zoning sit at LOD 200; coordination and clash detection at LOD 300–350; fabrication-level detail and as-built records at LOD 400–500.
The deliverable is agreed against what you actually need it for — coordination, procurement, fabrication, or handover to a facilities team who will still be using it in ten years.
Photorealistic renders and walkthrough animations are produced from the same model as the drawings, so what you show a board, a lender or an OEM customer is the building that will actually be built rather than an artist's impression of it.
They are also genuinely useful internally. Walking a production manager through a model before the foundation is poured surfaces process objections while they are still free to act on.
Conflicts resolved before procurement rather than after installation. A clash found in the model costs drafting time; the same clash found on site costs rework, a variation, and usually programme. It also comes from quantities taken off a coordinated model rather than estimated, which reduces both over-ordering and mid-project surprises. It is not a discount on construction — it is avoided waste.
No, and the sequence matters. Shop drawings are produced per trade, after award, by parties with no visibility of each other. Coordination modelling happens before that and across all of them, which is precisely where inter-trade clashes live. The model then makes the shop drawings faster and less contentious rather than replacing them.
Yes. It begins with a measured survey, because on an established facility the as-built condition and the original drawings have almost always diverged. That model is worth having before any expansion or relayout — it is the difference between designing against the building you have and the building you think you have.
It is the first question every client asks, and an honest answer needs two things from you: the process the building has to house, and the plot. A general-purpose shed and a heavy manufacturing bay of the same floor area differ by a wide margin, because the heavy bay needs crane-rated structure, process zoning and power infrastructure the shed does not. Consultancy fees are normally a percentage of construction cost, scaled to the scope you actually need — design only, design plus coordination, or full project management. Send us the plot details and what you intend to manufacture and you will get a specific fee proposal rather than a range.
Tell us the plot and what you intend to manufacture. Industrial projects from ₹5 Crore upward.
Or message us on WhatsApp