Welcome to ACC Ideas! Please note not all ideas receive a response and top voted ideas will be considered for future development. Click HERE for more information on the feedback process. Thank you for your ideas!
We would like to bring to your attention to a request reported by clients (The Brij & Max Estates) who is actively using the Forms Module in Autodesk Construction Cloud (ACC) for managing quality checklists, safety inspections, and other critical forms.
Current Behavior:
At present, once a form is initiated by a maker (initiator), email is automatically triggered and sent to all section assignees listed in the form, even before the initial section has been filled and submitted. Additionally, another round of notifications is sent when the maker submits the form, leading to duplicate and unnecessary notifications for other stakeholders who are not yet required to act.
Client’s Requirement:
The client has requested that notifications to subsequent section assignees should only be triggered once the initiator (maker) has filled and submitted their initial section, and not when the form is merely created. This change is especially crucial in multi-section workflows, where different departments (e.g., QA/QC, Safety, Execution) are responsible for completing their designated sections at different stages of work.
Site Scenario:
On-site contractor engineers are initiating Pour card or safety checklists by filling only the initial section. However, before submission, notifications are being sent prematurely to client teams (e.g., Safety, or Site Execution), leading to confusion and irrelevant follow-ups from stakeholders who are not yet required to act. This also adds to the noise in notification traffic, causing users to overlook important notifications when they are truly relevant.
Proposed Enhancement:
Benefits of Proposed Solution:
We have already explored the available notification settings under Project Admin and Form Template configurations; however, there appears to be no provision to control notifications at the section level.
We would appreciate it if your team could evaluate the feasibility of implementing this enhancement or provide any available workaround that could help meet this requirement.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.