I know this is going to sound harsh, but the entire Model Coordination clash management workflow needs to be completely flipped.
I can see where the current workflow is coming from. It shows us everything, and it is our job to whittle through it all with the ultimate goal of reducing it all to zero.
But this is also where much of my issues are found.
If a file is completely replaced, or maybe the author decides it's easier to delete a bulk of elements only to re-add them in a different layout, all that work of whittling through those previous clashes was all for nothing. I have to start the process again with the new elements.
And it's also not as easy as saying that the author shouldn't have been so heavy handed with their re-modelling, because that process is out of my control. I am the model recipient, not the author.
Furthermore, most companies likely have a priority list of clashes that they focus on. You could call it a rule-set. Focus should be spent on resolving those, and not the clashes that are 'not an issue'. Navisworks, while imperfect, did this much better.
The subtractive workflow of Model Coordination, in my experience, is quantifiably slower than the additive workflow of Navisworks.
I am not opposed to the Clash Matrix in Model Coordination, and I think it is a great overall view of the health of the models/project.
But we are really in need of rules-based clashing. We need to be able to zone in on the priorities first, and if time permits then we can circle back to the clash matrix to chip away at the least important clashes.
