When adding a user in a Project why doesn't the Company and Role sync to the Hub list? The majority of our member list at the Hub level is missing Company and Roles that have already been determined in the project.  Show More

it would be very helpful to be able to set a limited members permission for folders. Like 1 day, 1 month or so Show More

Please make keep all removed partners searchable so that any items in their court are able to be batch edited to a new current member. Removed members are not currently searchable, so finding anything they are managers for, or submitted by them is hard to locate. Show More

We need to prevent members from seeing other project members via the Insight / My Dashboard / Export / Share with , as this bypasses the setting that prohibits members from seeing one another. Show More

Permissions should be definable not one user at a time, but through company, role, user group, discipline, record category and workflow stage. Subcontractors should only be able to see records belonging to their own company and area of responsibility.  Show More

When adding members to a project I can only search by character strings within users emails. For example when adding user "John Smith [email protected]" I can search for johns or just John, but not Smith. It would be extremely beneficial to be able to search for first or last names and not just the characters in the email. Another example of the current system being difficult to use is when we have many 'John's in the company, it would be much easier to search by last name but since the email does not contain the last name I cannot narrow down the search easily. Show More

Currently, granting a user the ability to create new projects requires assigning Project Admin permissions. This permission grants the user access to all content in Files and other areas of the project.  However, we need the ability to allow designated users to create projects while still maintaining granular control over project-level file access and permissions. Our roles are Project Manager and Project Engineer, where the Project Manager is the Project Admin and the Project Engineer, that supports the Project Manager, is a Project Member. The Project Engineer's need to assist the Project Manager by creating & setting up Projects but should not have access to specific folders/files where the Project Manager places sensitive documentation.   Request is to add a checkbox, or other method, in the Member flyout panel in Hub Admin > Members, that allows the option for a member to Create Projects even if the Access level is Project member. Show More

The July 2026 update includes the following: User Administration | Remove Yourself from a Project Project members and Project Admins can now leave projects they did not create directly from the Projects list. From the More menu, users can select Leave project, making it easier to keep project access current without asking another administrator to remove them. I understand why this was added but I feel that Account Admins should have the ability to turn this on or off. We've added members and admins to a project for a reason and would like control over who is removed and why. I know some want to give people that option, but we would like to turn that option off. Show More

Currently in Forma, the Companies and Members model is flat: each member is tied to exactly one company and companies exist as standalone records with a fixed set of fields. It doesn't capture how real project teams are actually structured, where people frequently work through or on behalf of another firm (sub-consultants under a lead consultant, subcontractors under a prime, freelancers or agencies representing a company, or joint-venture members), so forcing everyone into a single company loses the real relationships mapping and complicates the handling of users.   What's needed is the ability to represent these third-party relationships and to enrich company and member records with more information.   I suggest support for a "third party" association that lets a member keep their home company while also being linked to one or more other companies with a defined relationship type (sub-consultant to, subcontractor to, on behalf of, seconded to), together with company-to-company relationships (prime/sub, parent/subsidiary, joint venture), internal/external/third-party classification tags, admin-defined custom attributes on both companies and members (maybe: contract reference, discipline, appointment status, clearance, expiry date, etc.) beyond today's fixed schema, and the ability to filter, report, and set permissions on all of these — configurable at Account Admin level and applied per project at Project Admin. This would let teams accurately model real prime/sub and JV structures, provide clear visibility of external participants for security and audit, keep the company database cleaner, support ISO aligned governance of the appointing/appointed-party chain, and lay the foundation for attribute-driven bulk administration and automation across many users and projects. Show More

We have been reported by customers , using Forma Data Management, where for one HUB they have several HUB Admins, that one of the Admins removed another Admin from the HUB, by mistake or even worse , that they removed themselves from the HUB ( instead of removing from a project. I suggest in a case like this to double verify the intension of the HUB admin to remove another HUB admin, for example  by asking Autodesk login credentials or similar. Show More

It would be extremely helpful to have the option to create and save a user group as a template for meeting invitations, rather than having to manually add participants one by one every time. This feature would save a significant amount of time and reduce errors when scheduling recurring meetings with the same team members or departments.   Show More

Problem Statement Autodesk currently allows organizations to establish governed business processes through APIs, but users may still be able to perform the same actions directly within Autodesk applications or through AI-powered assistants, effectively bypassing those controls. This creates governance gaps and undermines the purpose of implementing controlled, API-driven workflows.   Organizations need the ability to ensure that application features and AI agents adhere to the same governance model as their approved integrations and business processes.   Requested Enhancement Provide administrators with granular controls to disable or restrict specific application features while retaining API access. These restrictions should also be enforced for AI-powered assistants and agents. Key capabilities should include: Ability to disable specific application actions while maintaining API functionality. Enforcement of the same restrictions for both end users and AI agents. Centralized administrative controls for governance, compliance, and workflow enforcement. Consistent behavior across all interfaces, roles, modules, and workflows. Ability to designate APIs as the exclusive method for executing specific business processes.   Business Justification If an organization has intentionally implemented a governed business process through APIs, Autodesk should not allow users or AI assistants to circumvent those controls through native application functionality.   The current model creates situations where automation and governance investments can be undermined by alternative interfaces that bypass established workflows, approvals, and compliance requirements.   Autodesk should provide a governance framework that allows organizations to define where actions can occur and ensure those rules are enforced consistently throughout the platform.   Expected Outcome Administrators can confidently define and enforce business processes knowing that: API integrations, application features, and AI assistants all follow the same governance rules. Restricted actions remain restricted regardless of user role, module, or interface. Compliance, approval workflows, and organizational standards cannot be bypassed through alternative access paths. Autodesk applications support API-first governance models for enterprise customers. This capability would significantly strengthen enterprise governance, security, compliance, and trust in Autodesk's AI, automation, and platform ecosystem by ensuring that all methods of interacting with Autodesk products adhere to the same administrative controls and business rules.   Example 1: AI Agent Governance A comparable platform, CMiC, allows organizations to disable certain features while still exposing API functionality. This ensures that all activities flow through approved business processes. For example, users can ask the CMiC Agent to create a Business Partner. However, organizations can disable that capability if they require Business Partners to be created through a governed process. Autodesk should offer a similar governance model so that AI assistants cannot perform actions that administrators have intentionally restricted. Requested Behavior: Administrators can disable specific actions within Autodesk applications. AI assistants and agents inherit the same restrictions. Business processes enforced through APIs cannot be bypassed via conversational AI experiences.   Example 2: Project Creation Permissions Project creation controls currently behave inconsistently based on role assignment. An organization may disable project creation at the hub level to prevent unauthorized project creation. However, users assigned the Standards Administrator role receive access to the Library and are also granted a Create Project button, effectively reintroducing project creation capabilities through another pathway. As a result, organizations may avoid assigning the Standards Administrator role—even when users legitimately need Library access—because it creates an unintended governance exception. Requested Behavior: Allow administrators to disable project creation universally, regardless of role. Ensure the "Create Project" action can be independently controlled from other permissions. Apply the restriction consistently across all roles, interfaces, and workflows. Prevent alternate permission pathways from re-enabling restricted actions.   Example 3: Project Member Management Governance Organizations may establish a governed onboarding process for project members through APIs, ensuring proper approvals, role assignments, compliance checks, and system integrations occur before a user is added to a project. Today, project members can potentially be added through multiple interfaces, including: Project Admin Forma Design Even if an organization intends for all project membership changes to occur through an API-driven process, these alternative interfaces could allow users to bypass the established workflow. Requested Behavior: Allow administrators to disable manual project member creation and management while retaining API access. Enforce the restriction consistently across all locations where project members can be added or modified, including both Project Admin and Forma Design. Ensure AI-powered assistants adhere to the same restrictions. Support API-only governance models for project onboarding and access management. Business Value: This ensures that organizations with automated user provisioning, approval workflows, HR integrations, or identity management processes can maintain a single source of truth for project membership without the risk of users bypassing those processes through alternate Autodesk interfaces.   Example 4: Mobile App Creates Additional Governance Bypass Autodesk has indicated that future enhancements may allow users to add project members directly through the mobile application. While this functionality may improve convenience, it creates another pathway that can bypass an organization's governed business process. Many organizations utilize API-driven workflows for project member onboarding to enforce approvals, role validation, compliance checks, identity management integrations, and audit requirements. If project members can be added directly through the mobile app, users could circumvent these established controls. This highlights a broader governance challenge: as Autodesk introduces new experiences and entry points (web applications, mobile applications, AI assistants, etc.), organizations have no guarantee that existing restrictions will be consistently enforced across those interfaces. Requested Behavior: Allow administrators to disable project member management regardless of where the feature is exposed. Ensure any restrictions applied to project member creation and management are enforced consistently across: Project Admin Forma Design Mobile Applications AI Assistants and Agents Future Autodesk interfaces Support API-only governance models where project membership changes must flow through approved integrations and business processes. Business Value: Organizations should not have to continuously monitor new Autodesk features to determine whether they create additional governance exceptions. Administrative controls should be defined once and enforced everywhere. This ensures that as Autodesk expands functionality across web, mobile, and AI experiences, enterprise governance, compliance, and security requirements remain intact. Show More

    Can the ability to add project members into a group by adding a group attribute to the members section be added.    For example,   If we need a group of people from a certain company to be included in a workflow, or added to a certain folder, we currently have to add another role and add that role under each person which can get confusing. It would be easier to have a group category we can select to add to workflows/reviews/rfi's etc.   Administrators should be able to create groups (e.g., Lead Engineers or Review Team) and select those groups directly wherever users can be assigned. Show More

We use forms to add, remove, or adjust members and permissions.  It would be very handy to have that form open in a different window so i can then navigate to the Members section to add folks why still able to reference the form that has the need information. It would be even better if there was a way to interface a Form with the Members feature so I, as the admin, would just need to verify accuracy and Forma did the adding, removing, or updating. And while we're on it, having the roles available in the project as a drop-down list when completing the form. Show More

The current process for giving a new Member the ability to create projects, without granting full Hub Admin access, is awkward and requires an unnecessary number of clicks. Today, a Hub Admin must create or open an existing sample project, add the Member, and assign them Project Admin access before they can create projects on their own. This is an unusual workflow to ask of IT or office administrators, who are often responsible for setting up the Hub but may not be involved in project creation. The process becomes even more cumbersome because Members cannot be added to a project in bulk. For example, if I want 30 employees to have project creation access and do not already have a sample project, I have to create a temporary project, add all 30 people individually, tell them to disregard the project notification, and then explain that they can now create projects. This is awkward to explain to a new Administrator and creates unnecessary work and confusion. I have attached a suggested UI improvement. Adding a simple toggle, such as “Allow project creation in this Hub,” would let administrators grant this permission directly during Hub configuration. This would remove the need to create a project solely to enable project creation for members. Show More

There is no way to disable or configure email notifications that are sent out when a new project is created or a new member is invited. These are system-level messages that get sent automatically to (all) relevant users, regardless of individual notification settings — meaning admins have no control over whether these emails go out. At scale (200+ projects/year), this results in a high volume of unwanted or redundant notification emails that users cannot opt out of, cluttering inboxes and reducing the value of notifications overall. Requested improvement: add a setting (at account, hub, or user level) to enable/disable email notifications for project creation and new member invites, similar to other configurable notification types. Show More

Currently, Member Management allows users granted permission to add other users. This allows them to give access to others without Project Admin rights. Unfortunately, there is no way to limit which companies they can assign a user. This creates tremendous risk when there are company based permissions in the folder structure. Show More

When downloading a document with an external link (for no project members) it is not possible to add version attribute as a sufix on the name of the document. However you can do it with a link for project members. It would be extremely useful in order to check what version the no project members are working with. Show More

For Autodesk Forma, it would be very helpful if members could be centrally assigned to projects. Ideally, this assignment could be done via a simple checkbox selection, similar to the “Add to” functionality in Microsoft Forms. Currently, the process is quite time-consuming, especially when onboarding new employees, as each individual project must be opened to add the respective users. A central member management in the HUB, where project assignments can be handled directly, would significantly reduce administrative effort and noticeably improve efficiency. Show More