At the LiveCol final seminar, Professor Kalle Kahkonen did something I find particularly valuable in construction innovation discussions: he moved away from abstract promises and showed what actually happens when you test new collaboration technology under controlled yet realistic conditions.
LiveCol is a recently completed co-innovation project that developed and validated methods and tools for real-time, data-driven collaboration in construction design. The project aimed to move from differentiated, semi-coordinated workflows toward parallel, open, and up-to-date information management supported by 3D tools and integrated communication services.
I attended the project’s dissemination seminar on February 2, 2026, where representatives of the project consortium summarized the results of the 2.5-year project. Kalle’s presentation focused on the real-life trial.
The LiveCol consortium included Tampere University, VTT, Trimble, Senate Properties, and AFRY. After the seminar, the project released its final report, which is openly available for download.
A test bench for real-time collaboration
The research team built a test bench at Tampere University’s Trimble Tech Lab. They set up four workstations in separate rooms, configured Tekla Structures and Trimble Connect in a development version of Tekla Live Collaboration, and invited practicing structural engineers to participate. The goal was not to stage a marketing demo but to observe real designers solving a real task.
The design challenge was deliberately focused: model the steel canopy structure of a concrete office building and resolve the connection between steel and concrete.
A steel designer worked in one room, a concrete designer in another. They were connected via Teams for voice communication, but the core of the experiment was live model interaction. Changes made by one designer appeared instantly in the other’s environment. There were no IFC exports, no uploads to a common data environment, and no waiting for the next coordination cycle.
Immediate advantages
From a technical perspective, the advantages were immediately apparent. Real-time synchronization eliminated file transfers and reduced coordination lag. Designers appreciated the new level of visual communication; instead of describing a change verbally, they could see it unfold in the model. Alternatives were easier to explore because iteration was fast.
The shared visual context made it possible to understand not only what changed but also why. Participants also recognized that this setup supports remote co-design particularly well in large, complex projects, where traditional coordination methods tend to slow decision-making.
Continuous transparency
The most interesting observations were not purely technical. Real-time collaboration altered the rhythm of work. Designers are used to controlling when their work becomes visible to others. They develop partial solutions, refine them, and then share. In a live environment, that “buffering layer” disappears.
One participant even found the continuous movement of elements on the screen distracting, because changes made by others occurred in parallel with their own concentration. This highlights an important shift: coordination is no longer a scheduled event; it becomes continuous.
Best for demanding projects
Kalle emphasized that this technology is particularly suited to demanding design tasks, where interdependencies are high, and coordination failures are costly.
The canopy connection case was relatively simple, but it demonstrated the principle. For more complex structural, MEP, or interdisciplinary challenges, the potential impact could be far greater. At the same time, he was careful not to suggest that everything should suddenly become real-time.
Introducing such tools challenges established processes, responsibility boundaries, and organizational habits. Without thoughtful structuring, disruption does not automatically translate into value.
When to practice real-time collaboration?
The seminar discussion revealed another important theme: we still lack a clear framework for when and how to use real-time collaboration. Should it run continuously throughout a project, or should it be activated for specific sessions? Is it most effective in clash-resolution workshops, detailed connection design, or Integrated Concurrent Engineering–style big-room meetings?
Jaakko Huusko referred to Norwegian VDC practices where structured concurrent sessions are organized around predefined problems. In such settings, real-time model collaboration becomes a powerful accelerator of problem-solving. This suggests that the next step is not merely improving the software but developing structured use-case strategies.
Deeper questions
Of course, the test bench also revealed some technical limitations. These issues are normal in evolving software and will likely be addressed.
What matters more is that the experiment exposed deeper organizational questions. Real-time collaboration compresses feedback cycles and increases transparency. It forces teams to rethink how responsibilities are defined and what level of visibility is comfortable.
Real-time BIM is not just a faster version of file-based coordination. It represents a shift in the collaboration clock rate for design work. When feedback becomes instantaneous, processes that were designed for weekly or bi-weekly synchronization start to feel outdated. Yet contracts, compensation models, and internal quality assurance procedures are still largely built around those slower rhythms.
The next steps
The LiveCol experiment suggests that we are at an inflection point. The technology clearly works in practice. Designers see tangible benefits in communication, iteration speed, and contextual problem-solving. At the same time, adoption requires deliberate choices about where it adds the most value and how processes must adapt around it.
The competitive question is whether organizations will proactively structure their workflows to harness it or wait until external pressures force the shift.
