Architecture and trade‑fair / event projects are high‑performance builds: tight schedules, many trades and extreme technical density. If you’ve seen an AV team lay cable at night only to find the electrical crew claiming the same tray in the morning, you know the core problem: interfaces.

The biggest challenge isn’t the technology itself, but the handovers between responsibilities. This is where projects either run smoothly—or descend into chaos.

In practice, interface problems occur in almost every project. Examples:

• AV and electrical (ELT): show technology brings peak loads that ELT planning often ignores. The result: power outages or ad‑hoc retrofits.
• Lighting and architecture: spots or projectors block sight lines, cause glare or obscure architectural details.
• Fire detection (BMA) and show technology: loudspeakers, screens or truss block detectors or sprinklers. Standards such as EN 54 collide with staging ambitions.
• Staging and safety: escape routes are constricted by rigging structures or decor.

Each of these conflicts costs time and money—and in almost every case integrated planning could have prevented it.

Unclear interfaces lead to three main problems:

• Cost explosion due to change orders: once trades collide during build, fixes must happen immediately. Trade‑fair builds have immovable opening dates—clients pay almost any price to make it happen.
• Time loss: collisions cause delays. Instead of working in parallel, trades wait until conflicts are resolved—shifting entire build phases.
• Quality degradation: quick fixes are rarely elegant. Improvised cabling, modified mounts or last‑minute changes compromise the overall result.

The central idea: bring all trades into one coordinated plan early. That doesn’t mean one planner does everything—it means they take the role of moderator, coordinator and conflict resolver.

Methods of integrated planning

• BIM models (Building Information Modelling): digital models in which all trades work simultaneously. Conflicts (e.g. cable tray vs sprinkler line) become visible on screen.
• Central planning platforms: common data environments (CDEs) that keep all plans current.
• Interface workshops: regular meetings where all parties resolve open questions together.
• Visual simulations: lighting, acoustic or egress simulations help identify conflicts early.

An international company planned a 2,000 m² trade‑fair presence with several interactive installations. Initially the trades were planned separately. Already in design it became clear: conflicts were piling up.

The team switched to an integrated planning approach. Result:

• 15% cost savings by avoiding change orders.
• Several days gained in build time, as trades could work in parallel.
• Noticeably higher quality because staging and safety were aligned.

• Introduce interface workshops early—ideally already in concept.
• Appoint a central coordinator with cross‑trade literacy.
• Document responsibilities clearly—each interface needs an owner.
• Use digital tools consistently—paper plans are no longer sufficient for complex projects.
• Budget for coordination—desk fixes are always cheaper than site fixes.

Interfaces are the Achilles’ heel of every complex project. They are inevitable when many trades work in tight spaces—but whether they become risk or advantage depends on planning.

Integrated specialist planning isn’t a ‘nice‑to‑have’; it’s the way to secure cost, time and quality long‑term. Ignore it, and you’ll pay twice.