Skip to content
Use case 02 · Engineering / Design

Intelligent fire and MEP drawing review

A workflow that aligns drawing sheets and scale, recognises rooms and devices, and raises candidate fire and MEP conflicts across revisions. Each candidate carries its sheet, revision and coordinates, and each one gets a recorded reviewer decision.

Get the requirements document See the flow
Runs standaloneUploads and manual entryDrawing reviewer signs
Workflow 02 · demo runAwaiting sign-off

Fire engineerReviewers have to find fire and MEP conflicts across large drawing sets that keep being revised, and then prove months later which clashes were checked and who decided what.

  1. Align sheets and scaleAutomated
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  2. Recognise rooms and devicesAutomated
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  3. Raise issue candidatesAutomated
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  4. Compare revisionsAutomated
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  5. Record every dispositionReviewer
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
Stopped for the drawing reviewer to sign
  • Who uses itFire engineer, drawing reviewer, project manager
  • Lifecycle stageEngineering / Design
  • Buyer groupTrack A · Engineering & Design
  • RequirementsBRD v0.1, sent as written
At a glance

What goes in, what comes out

Goes in
Drawing sets
Revisions
Symbol conventions
Intelligent Drawing ReviewFive steps · one approval gate Drawing reviewer signs
Comes out
Issue register
Pinned coordinates
Reviewer decisions
What it does

Intelligent Drawing Review, step by step

Five steps, one decision point. The last step is a person, every time.

  1. 01
    Automated

    Align sheets and scale

    Drawing sets registered so positions can be compared consistently across disciplines.

  2. 02
    Automated

    Recognise rooms and devices

    Spaces, fire devices and service runs identified so the review has something to reason about.

  3. 03
    Automated

    Raise issue candidates

    Cross-discipline conflicts surfaced as candidates, each pinned to a sheet, revision and coordinate.

  4. 04
    Automated

    Compare revisions

    When revision C arrives, what changed is shown against what was already reviewed.

  5. 05
    Reviewer

    Record every disposition

    Accepted, rejected or referred — with the reviewer's name against it.

    Is the clash real?

    Yes Accepted and given an ownerNo Rejected, with the reason recorded
  6. Output

    What lands at the end

    An annotated drawing issue register with sheet, revision, coordinates, discipline, owner, status and the reviewer's decision on every line.

Who’s involved

Fire engineerDrawing reviewerProject manager

What you get

  • Issue register
  • Pinned coordinates
  • Reviewer decisions

In the wireframe

A moved door and a sprinkler symbol near a new soffit generate two candidate issues.

Use case diagram

Who does what, and who signs

Automated steps prepare the evidence. People make the calls.

Swipe to see the whole diagram

Use case diagram: Intelligent Drawing Review People: Fire engineer, Drawing reviewer, Project manager. Steps: 1 Align sheets and scale; 2 Recognise rooms and devices; 3 Raise issue candidates; 4 Compare revisions; 5 Record every disposition. Drawing reviewer approves the final step. Intelligent Drawing Review«workflow, built with DeX»«inputs»01 Align sheets and scale02 Recognise rooms and devices03 Raise issue candidates04 Compare revisions05 Record every dispositionFire engineerProject managerDrawing reviewer«approves»«documents»Drawing sets, …
Automated step Done by a person Approval gate Takes part Leads to
What changes

Why this costs you time today

Reviewers have to find fire and MEP conflicts across large drawing sets that keep being revised, and then prove months later which clashes were checked and who decided what. The proof usually lives in an email thread.

Task
Today
With this workflow
Finding clashes
Eyeballing overlaid PDFs
Candidates raised with sheet and coordinates
A new revision
Review the whole set again
Review only what moved
Proof months later
Buried in an email thread
The register shows who decided, when and why
The line we do not cross

What this software will not do

Life-safety work. These limits are written into the requirements, not added as a disclaimer.

Specific to this workflow

Candidates are candidates. The software does not confirm that a clash is real or that a resolution is acceptable — a reviewer disposes of each one, and the register shows who.

It does not decide compliance

The software assembles evidence, retrieves source clauses and shows conflicts. It does not determine whether anything complies. A named engineer does.

It does not stand in for an authority

An approval recorded in the software never implies consent from an AHJ, Civil Defence, building control or a building surveyor.

Nothing leaves without a named reviewer

Every output carries who approved it. Anything unverified keeps a draft marker until someone signs it.

It does not do sealed engineering

Hydraulic network calculation, definitive sprinkler layout, sealed design, BIM geometry authoring and final cost estimates are all out of scope by design.

Your standards, not ours

NFPA, EN, BS, ISO, FM, UL, LPCB and Civil Defence appear in the requirements as examples. None is assumed to apply to your projects until you say so.

~1/10of traditional build time
~30%of traditional cost

That is a claim about how fast Colakin builds software with DeX, and it is supported by delivered projects. It is not a claim about what any of these fifteen workflows will save your business. The requirements deliberately leave that to a pilot, measured against your own baseline.

How an engagement runs

From a question to a pilot, in five steps

Nothing hidden behind a discovery call. Stop at step one and keep the document.

  1. 01

    You ask for the requirements document

    The full BRD for the workflow you care about, sent as written.

    Same day
  2. 02

    A ten-minute wireframe walkthrough

    A clickable prototype of that one workflow.

    10 minutes
  3. 03

    The Fire Fit Check

    Five questions: fit, hours lost, who approves spend, whether your documents can be shared, and timing.

    One call
  4. 04

    A scope built on your rules

    Your standards, your document formats, your approval gates.

    Within a week
  5. 05

    A pilot against your own baseline

    One workflow, your data, your engineers.

    Q1
Same buyer, same week

Also in Engineering & Design

Each one stands alone. Take one first, then decide whether a second earns its place.

01 · Engineering & Design

AI Fire Design & Engineering

Drawings and specs in. An evidence-linked design basis out.

Design basis reportCriteria registerOpen conflicts
Open the workflow
03 · Engineering & Design

Code & Specification Compliance

A clause-by-clause matrix. The reviewer decides, never the software.

Compliance matrixExceptionsEvidence links
Open the workflow
09 · Engineering & Design

Engineering Drawing Automation

Draft placement against approved criteria. The designer accepts.

Draft layoutScheduleRevision clouds
Open the workflow

All fifteen workflows

Questions

Intelligent Drawing Review: questions

Does it replace a coordination review?
No. It gives the reviewer a structured set of candidates and a place to record decisions. The judgement about whether a clash matters stays with the engineer.
What happens on a revision?
The new set is compared against the reviewed one. Issues already dispositioned stay closed unless the geometry they relate to has moved, which keeps the reviewer on the delta rather than the whole set.
Can it read our drawing conventions?
Symbol sets and layer conventions are configured against your own drawings during scoping. Nothing is assumed from a generic template.
What does an auditor see?
The register: every candidate raised, its location, who dispositioned it, when, and on what basis.
Next step

Ask for the Intelligent Drawing Review requirements document

The business requirements document as written, including what it refuses to do. No brochure, no drip sequence.

  • The requirements document, usually the same working day
  • A ten-minute wireframe walkthrough with the people who specified it
  • No claimed percentage saving — your pilot measures it

Request the document

One working day. A person replies, not a sequence.

We use this to reply, nothing else. No list, no newsletter.