During various exchanges with construction industry actors, this working group observed a significant disparity in terms of motivation, understanding, acceptance and maturity with regard to digital technology and innovations, as well as the contributions and changes they could generate.

Use case 4, entitled “Project review”, brought together 16 partners. These representatives of actors in the sector shared a view of how to run a project review based on the various disciplines involved in an infrastructure construction project at the different milestones of the project lifecycle.

All the elements, which are presented in the UC4 phase 1 deliverable, start from the assumption that a BIM is used as a support for the project review.

During projects, the project reviews are special milestones for the actors to compare views among themselves. They are essentially the point at which the validity and pertinence of the design and construction solutions are confirmed. The existence of a BIM (Building Information Modelling) process and information model providing a visual representation of the construction represents a tool with great potential in this context, and one that requires detailed examination.

The phase 1 report firstly provides an explanation of the various notions that need to be understood for a successful project review, such as project management, collaborative work and interoperability. After the initial stage to establish and define of the planned work programme, the method used involved checking that a certain shared language could be established among the partners. From this starting point, the partners expressed their expectations, drew up definitions for deliverables and structured the team into a certain number of sub-groups.

The reviews of the state of the art, regulations, and best and worst practices from certain ongoing or finalised projects were presented from different angles. The study gave rise to the observation that there is an infinitely diverse range of situations. However, it also showed that we are far from having found, at this point, solutions that are completely sound and reliable. Indeed, the study showed that the necessarily cooperative character created by the reference models requires the revision of practices, new forms of contractual regulation, the participation of all actors from the Project Owner down, and a clear definition of the desired objectives when an information model and BIM process are introduced.


A mind map aided comprehension of the various angles of approach adopted in order to structure the general discussion. The work largely drew on concepts from the field of systems engineering that had been tried and tested in other industries. The salient points of the analysis include the advantages of establishing approaches as early as possible in a project, ensuring that all points of view are present at all times, and carrying out regular reviews to check, as part of a planned, iterative and progressive process, that requirements are being satisfied.

This phase 1 work dealt with:

  • the contexts, of all types, in which any information project review takes place, and the possible objectives;
  • functions;
  • interfaces;
  • the stakeholders in the project review, or the points of view that should be represented in the event that the stakeholders have not yet been designated;
  • the costs associated with the project review;
  • legal procedures and frameworks;
  • technological provisions;
  • the necessary skills;
  • the organisation of resources and the way in which project reviews are managed and coordinated in a digital context;
  • the demands that should be dealt with in contractual provisions;
  • the risks associated with introducing a digital project review.

This use case has contributed to the various themes of the MINnD national project:

  • the Observatory, as the glossary and reviews of the state of the art are relevant to monitoring as well as internal MINnD synthesis;
  • needs in terms of tools, technologies and process development, which have been identified throughout the work;
  • the outcomes should provide a framework for any experimentation in a later phase;
  • the scheduling of project reviews leads to the establishment of data structuring systems and process progression rules;
  • validation and comparison during project reviews is directly linked to the contractual conditions that should define the liability context in which they apply.

The phase 1 report is a first appraisal of the work and a prerequisite for the drafting of a methodological guide for project reviews.