Docs (ACC/B360) - Change from folder storage/structure to metadata storage/structure

[Chad-Smith]

There is an ageing problem with the fundamental way that B360/ACC Docs stores documents. It uses unintelligent folders that are now becoming a dated method of document storage and management.

Folders have numerous problems:

• They are cumbersome and time-consuming to manage.
• They can be difficult to control granular user permissions.
• They promote file duplication and version confusion across folders.
• Difficult to control files under ISO 19650 conditions.
• In BIM 360 specifically, they can cause issues with file linking.

As a result, Docs needs to move to a metadata-based document management system. One where files are unique, follow conventions like naming, and with linear versioning that doesn't lead to ambiguous duplication.

Under such a system, browsing can be performed with searches/favourites, filtering, or even a 'smart' folders structure that use metadata to only show matching documents. It could even mean that design authoring tools like Revit on Design Collaboration would be smart enough to only show active/filtered live models without the need to unnecessarily traverse folders.

With many other document management systems either moving or have already moved to a metadata storage structure, it is time that ACC/B360 do the same.

[allan.stableford]

Well said @Chad-Smith. 100% agree. Having used other systems such as viewpoint for projects (4p) with linked containers for years now, using B360 is just hard work and such a backwards step.

It's just incompatible with current thinking of 19650 and source of truth etc. As you rightly said, duplicating files is encouraged/required to use the platform yet no way to track that versioning which is my biggest issue.

Autodesk really do need to talk/listen to its users and have a fundamental overhaul as you describe, but I fear this is just another idea that will be completely wasted on Autodesk. The ideas forum is littered with un-responded ideas.

Lets keep trying though @Chad-Smith, I do like and agree with most of yours and you put them across very well.

Thanks

[Chad-Smith]

Just doing a search through the Ideas forum and there are a lot of ideas for folders.

Can't help but think that a transition to a metadata-based storage would greatly simplify/eliminate those folder ideas.

But I will concede that a change could cause an issue for the Desktop Connector. 

[Chad-Smith]

I've created an Idea that expresses my thoughts around Bridge and connected projects that ties in with this idea.

Bridging workflows (not just files) between accounts // Meshed Projects - Autodesk Community

[Chad-Smith]

Using folders wreaks havoc on the Model Coordination workflow.

In the 'Shared' folder structure there is no way to exclude certain files and sub-folders. This means that any secondary files like exchange exports (e.g. IFCs) that are shared via Design Collaboration also land in the shared folder and are now considered for model coordination. This litters the model coordination space with unwanted files.

While you can exclude models from generating clash results, you can't completely exclude them from the entire module.

[Eduardo_SchoenauLLW42]

@Chad-Smith , any update about this post? We start struggling to change from Viewpoint  to ACC ( @allan.stableford , huge step, but not been able to automate the start of a workflows feel like moving backwards), worried about folder structure and things like copying (not linking) files from the workflow to another folder.

It will be great to heat some tips about it...

[Chad-Smith]

No update. Autodesk would have to first accept this idea for consideration.

[Chad-Smith]

Branching out on this idea and in line with ISO standards, we also need to address the TIDP and MIDP documents.

There is no doubt that ACC needs the ability to ingest/define these document placeholders so as to set the delivery document structure. Then having the placeholders defined, they need to be reportable to track when/if other parties are populating there required deliverables and if they've met their due dates.

Documents need to be trackable, not just uploadable.

Other products like Aconex can already do this. That's because their platform is a Document Management System (DMS), something that ACC is missing.

I would like to reference here two other forum Ideas where document placeholders have been requested.

Master Deliverable list

Placeholder items of documents

[Chad-Smith]

Models can't be archived since shared and consumed models don't change state. Another reason why ACC can't be ISO 19650 compliant, and why it needs to transition to a metadata storage structure.

Design Collaboration // Can't archive models

[asWAPL9]

my two cents Chad. I believe BIM360/ACC should not become Aconex. we have used that platfom on our projects, with and without document controller. it is a nightmare. everything else I agree.