Why is it generally considered a poor practice to divide a constructability review strictly by design discipline, and how does this approach make it more difficult to identify critical issues that exist at the boundaries between systems like structural and MEP?
Dividing a review strictly by discipline is poor practice because most critical design issues occur at the overlaps between systems, not within a single discipline. As outlined in the best practices at https://www.fields-builds.com/blog/constructability-review-best-practices (https://www.fields-builds.com/blog/constructability-review-best-practices) when you split the review, it becomes much harder to identify problems at these boundaries, like a structural beam clashing with an MEP duct. Each specialist may correctly review their own drawings, but no single person is holistically evaluating how those systems interact. The result is that these cross-discipline conflicts remain hidden until construction, leading to expensive rework and delays. A unified review, where the team examines the interfaces together, is essential for catching these issues early.