Before any pipe is welded or any skid is built, every project begins in the same place: the model room.
It’s that moment when ideas turn into something you can actually see, the first glimpse of what the facility could become… and everything that might go wrong if no one catches it in time.
A good 3D model review is where the project quietly succeeds or slowly derails.
The better the review, the smoother everything that follows.
The weaker it is… well, the problems tend to show up later, louder, and more expensive.
This article sets the foundation, the first chapter of the project story, before we move on to equipment, FATs, and everything that comes after.
How to Conduct an Effective 3D Model Review.
3D model reviews are one of the most important checkpoints in the design and execution of a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility. They allow the project team to identify clashes, accessibility issues, and compliance gaps before fabrication and construction, when changes are still manageable. But a review is only as good as the preparation, the structure of the sessions, and the discipline in closing out punch points. If these are missing, the review risks becoming just another meeting with screenshots and vague notes.
Define the Goal of the Review
The first step is to clearly define the purpose of each review stage. A 30% review is focused on confirming general layout and equipment placement. A 60% review digs into routing, accessibility, and clearance. By 90%, the goal is to finalize ergonomics, compliance, and clash checks. Within each stage, the sessions should also have specific scopes: one day dedicated to process room piping, another to clean utility routing, another to electrical trays. Without this structure, sessions drift and the punch list becomes unmanageable.
It is also critical to recognize that design freedom narrows as the project progresses. Once the 90% review is complete, changes should only be allowed if they meet predefined criteria, such as safety, compliance, or critical operational requirements. Accepting “nice-to-have” changes beyond this point erodes schedule control and cascades into fabrication delays.
Define Level of Detail
It is important to set clear expectations for what Level of Detail (LOD) the model should contain at each review stage. At 30%, you do not need every instrument nozzle shown, but by 60%, small-bore utility lines and nozzle orientations should be modelled. By 90%, every detail should be in. If LOD is undefined, disciplines either under-deliver or over-deliver, both of which waste time.
Each milestone should also use a checklist, tailored to the scope of the review. For example, a skid review checklist might focus on nozzle orientation, valve access, and drainability, while a room review checklist would include ceiling penetrations, egress routes, and personnel/material flows. Checklists keep the review structured, consistent, and traceable across sessions.
Alongside LOD, define BIM standards: naming conventions, metadata, file formats, layering, and software versions. Without a unified standard, merging models becomes error-prone and review time is wasted.
Treat Reviews as a Continuous Process
A 3D review is not limited to 30%, 60%, and 90% milestone meetings. Those checkpoints provide structure, but the real value comes from the constant exchange of data and feedback among stakeholders. vendors, engineering teams, QA, EHS, and operations should be sharing model snapshots, markup files, and issue trackers throughout the design process. This continuous flow prevents last-minute surprises and reduces the burden on milestone reviews. In a well-run project, the formal reviews confirm what has already been addressed through ongoing collaboration.
Appoint the Right Moderator
A 3D review needs structure. Appoint a moderator who is experienced in projects but not directly tied to the design under review. Their independence allows them to guide discussions impartially, keep the group on track, and ensure every discipline is heard. A strong moderator is essential to prevent the session from dissolving into endless debates or off-topic discussions.
Involve the Right Stakeholders
The wider team needs to be involved, but not all at once. Schedule specific time slots for EHS, QA, maintenance, and end-users to review the areas most relevant to them. This respects their time and ensures their input is targeted. Providing a day-by-day agenda allows stakeholders to prepare and attend the sessions where their expertise is critical.
Support the Review with Proper Tools and Documents
Reviews should be conducted in person as much as possible. Standing together in front of the model uncovers issues that remote screenshares often miss. These sessions should be included in project definition with the vendor, so adequate time and resources are built into the contract. Attendees must receive a complete document pack in advance; P&IDs, vendor GA drawings, personnel and material flow diagrams, and applicable standards. Consistency and version control are critical: if reference documents are out of sync, the review devolves into confusion over mismatches rather than true design issues.
Go Beyond Automated Clash Detection
Automated clash detection tools are useful, but they only capture geometric conflicts. They cannot identify functional clashes such as unsafe access, poor operator reach, maintenance conflicts, or GMP non-compliance. A proper 3D review must deliberately check for these: dead legs in piping, inadequate slopes for CIP/SIP, access to manways and valves, pump removal routes, cleanroom airflow, hazardous area zoning, and emergency egress. These are often more critical than geometric clashes.
Raise Specific, Actionable Punch Points
Generic comments like “tight space” or “improve access” add no value. Every punch point must be specific, measurable, and verifiable. For example: “Provide a minimum of 600 mm clearance in front of control panel CP-03. Current clearance is ~350 mm. Utility line UL-22 must be rerouted to achieve this.” Specificity eliminates ambiguity and makes closure straightforward.
Record and Own the Punch List
Assign one person to record all punch points during the review. This must be their only responsibility. Scatter-shot note taking by multiple people always leads to gaps. The punch list should be stored in a web-based platform, such as Monday.com, BIM 360, or Navisworks issue tracker so all parties (owner, EPCM, vendors) can access and update status in real time.
Each punch point should have:
- Unique ID
- Screenshot with markup
- Discipline owner and due date
- Closure evidence (updated screenshot, revised drawing reference)
Most importantly, overall ownership of the punch list must be defined at the project level. This owner, often the project manager or discipline lead, must have the authority to enforce closure. Without empowered ownership, even well-documented punch lists stagnate.
Keep the Review Disciplined
Sessions should start with high-risk areas: process rooms, skids, and utility corridors. If a discussion cannot be resolved in under five minutes, the issue should be logged and resolved offline. The moderator is responsible for ensuring pace and balance—avoiding endless debates while still capturing critical input.
Follow Up with Transparency
A punch list is only useful if it drives closure. Distribute the consolidated list within 24 hours of each review. Status should be clearly tracked as open, in progress, or closed, with evidence attached. Critical items should be followed up with short focused sessions rather than waiting until the next milestone review. After each major review, conduct a closure audit: were all items resolved correctly? Did fixes introduce new issues? Did the changes respect schedule and budget? This feedback loop strengthens the process.
Final Word
A good 3D model review isn’t just a milestone—it’s a continuous process. It’s not just about clash reports, it’s about operability, maintainability, safety, and compliance.
When you set clear goals, appoint the right moderator, write actionable punch points, and enforce closure with discipline, 3D reviews become one of the strongest tools for controlling cost, schedule, and quality in pharmaceutical projects.
What’s next?
If you’re wondering what comes next (how this approved design becomes real equipment that must prove itself), the next article will walk through how to conduct an effective FAT.
Stay tuned!
Do you need help?
If you need help for an effective 3D Model Reviews in GMP,
